The Return of the 8M3 Effect Bullet

The AK has a problem as a defensive rifle. Rifle projectiles that do not yaw, fragment, or expand tend to produce wounds that are little more severe than those produced by pistol bullets. In 7.62x39mm, this problem is compounded by its relatively low velocity, when compared to 5.56mm, 5.45mm, or full power rifle cartridges like 7.62x51mm. Some 7.62x39mm FMJ does yaw reliably, but even the good stuff, like Yugoslavian M67 or Golden Tiger 124 gr FMJ, does not yaw until it has penetrated four inches or more. More common FMJ like Wolf, TulAmmo, or any of the differently colored Bears tend to yaw even later, if at all. There are a great number of “hollow point” loads available in 7.62x39mm from the various Russian brands but, with very few exceptions, these projectiles behave exactly like full metal jacket in tissue. There are a few American loads that have excellent terminal performance, but these are far more expensive.There are Russian 124 gr and 154 gr soft points available, and these do generally tend to expand well, but they are not reliable and some users have reported feeding problems with soft points. What’s worse, Russian ammo makers seem to change components more often than Bruce Jenner changes his mind. You never really know what projectile will be loaded in the ammunition you buy, unless it is actually labeled with the specific projectile design, like Western ammo.

Tula 8M3

TulAmmo 7.62x39mm 124 gr 8M3 hollow point ammunition comes in 100 round packs.

That’s where the 8M3 “effect” bullet from Ulyanovsk comes in. Loads made using this hollow point bullet with internal scoring on the jacket developed a formidable reputation for brutal terminal performance. Unfortunately, the last lots using this bullet were imported over a decade ago. Russian ammo makers switch components at will and without notice so there are endless rumors that a particular lot of Tula or Silver Bear is being loaded the the 8M3 bullet, but these rumors never seem to pan out.

So when TulAmmo introduced 100 round packs of 124 gr HP that are actually labeled as 8M3, Kalashnikov owners were understandably enthusiastic. Still, there were some that were a bit skeptical. Could this really be 8M3 or was this just a marketing ploy to sell more cheap steel case ammo? The Chopping Block tested Tula’s new offering in calibrated 10% organic ordnance gelatin and found that it is, indeed, a fragmenting bullet that appears by all measures to be genuine 8M3.

 

  • Rifle: Romanian WASR 10/63 16″ bbl8m3 hispeed.MOV.Still001
  • BB calibration: 591.5 fps, 3.7″
  • Average velocity: 2,442
  • Penetration: 14.7″
  • Retained weight: 55.9gr

The numbers are excellent. Approximately 2,400 fps velocity with an ideal penetration depth of 14.7 inches. This meets the FBI recommended minimum of 12″ without exceeding the max recommendation. Right in that Goldilocks spot. The disruption produced is astounding and leaves nothing to be desired with extensive fragmentation, but the size of the fragments are of a size that is large enough to cause significant wounding. The neck, that is the distance the bullet travels before starting to yaw, fragment, or expand, is so short that it is barely measurable.

IMG_1004 2

Folks, this is exactly what AK owners have been waiting for. The best part is the price. At 26¢ a round, shipped, this ammunition is perfect for stacking high in case of zombie space aliens. Like most Russian ammo, it has a sealed neck and primer and it has a polymer coated case with noncorrosive primers.

Is it the best ammunition available? Not quite, but it’s close. Western makers have better quality control standards and the Fusion and TSX will both retain good terminal effect farther down range and should be expected to perform better against barriers. Tula is also not known for being the most accurate ammunition, but let’s be honest, accuracy isn’t the AKs forte and Tula is certainly accurate enough to be useful at any practical defensive distance. It’s not a great choice for hunting, either. Again, Western bullets that don’t leave as many lead fragments behind are probably a better choice here too.

The one thing this ammunition is good for is that it is absolute murder on tissue while being affordable enough to be purchased in quantity. That means you can be confident in your zero and in the ability of your rifle to cycle this ammo. The importance of training far outstrips the importance of ammo selection, so when you are able to find dramatically more effective ammo that is affordable enough to train with, that is profoundly useful.



Andrew

Andrew is a combat veteran of OEF and has performed hundreds of ballistic tests for his YouTube channel, The Chopping Block (https://www.youtube.com/user/chopinbloc). He is an avid firearm collector and competitor and lives with his family in Arizona. If you have any questions, you may email him at choppingblocktests@gmail.com


Advertisement

  • CLICCO

    Is this ammo magnetic?

    • John Yossarian

      Steel-cased = Yes. The majority of indoor ranges will not let you shoot it.

      • Ken

        Yes, bimetal jacket, but not steel core.

        The indoor ranges around here largely let people shoot it because they’re not retarded. I’ve seen non-steel .223 make larger showers of sparks than my bimetal 7.62×39 simply because of velocity of the .223.

        • John Yossarian

          Unfortunately, it’s not retardation that keeps indoor ranges from letting people shoot steel-cased – It’s the profit motive in selling over-priced brass-cased from their pro-shop.

          • Ken

            There are a few ranges here that only let you shoot their ammo. They sell overpriced steel case for even more profit.

          • clampdown

            My local indoor range only allows pistol-caliber and rimfire rounds, though I’m not sure that .17WSM is approved as of yet…

          • FLdeepdiver

            That may be the motivating factor for some. However for us, it’s the increased wear on range components and target carriers from the bi-metal jacketed bullets in steel cased ammo.

          • valorius

            US 5.56mm M193 generally does more damage to steel than 7.62x39mm bi metal does.

          • FLdeepdiver

            I respectfully disagree. Operating two indoor ranges for 6+ years.

            It’s not just velocity, mass is also a factor.

          • valorius

            My brother ran an indoor range in my area for several years. In Range TV just did a video on this the other day too, it’s on you tube.

            Of course your personal experience is your personal experience.

          • Brasstard

            I have a bunch of steel jacketed 7.62×51 from the 60s and 70s that’s mixed in with regular brass jacketed ammo. Didn’t realize they were steel till a magnet stuck to one by accident

          • Chop Block

            Modern, Lake City M80 (XM80) is steel jacketed.

          • QED

            How about firing one or two at ~ 2800 fps into gel to see how it tumbles and fragments.

          • FLdeepdiver

            Agreed.

            Indirect 5.56mm to my target carrier ($6000+) creates minimal damage. Indirect 7.62x39mm or 7.62x51mm bi-metal will end it.

            Not everything on the range is protected by AR500 steel.

          • Chop Block

            FLdeepdiver, it’s probably just because AK shooters tend to miss more. 😉

          • FLdeepdiver

            lolz!

          • Chop Block

            And the fire risk. The bullet catch is usually crumb rubber and there is a bit of unburnt powder residue on everything. Steel jacketed bullets spark when they hit concrete. While the probability is low, a fire in the crumb rubber would be a nasty thing.

          • Ken

            The backstop at the one here is two steel plates in a wedge with a gap at the end. Bullets splatter on the plates and the fragments go through the gap into the trap. That’s where I see gilding metal jacketed .223 throw larger showers of sparks than 7.62×39 sometimes.

          • Chop Block

            I’m sure it depends a great deal on range design. There may also be some component of policy being based on what somebody heard from somebody who heard it. I’m not really qualified to have an opinion. My main point was that it isn’t necessarily greed driving the decision.

          • FLdeepdiver

            Have had two small fires. Both from tracers. The chopped rubber is not that dense (if mined properly) and combined with airflow from range vents creates an perfect smolder environment.

  • iksnilol

    I like this. Though I do feel that it is important to mention that 4 inches in ballistic gel is equivalent to breaking the skin. So while M67 is good enough already, this 8m3 seems brutal.

    Wish they’d sell the bullets as reloading component. Preferably without a bimetal jacket.

    • Gustav Sandåker Tangen

      Now, if only we could use the SKS as a hunting rifle over here…

      • iksnilol

        Why would you do that? It’s obviously a slavaboo weapon of choice for mayhem.

        Yeah, SKS’es would be nice. Though I think I will get a CZ 527 in the same caliber. Somehow get a 10 round magazine and a SKS stripper clip guide on it.

        • Gustav Sandåker Tangen

          Nyet, rifle iz dangerous cheeki breeki military rifle. Unlike Ruger Mini-14’s. o.O
          Shouldn’t be too horrible for a gunsmith to get clip guides into a 527. Are 10rd mags even made for them, though?

          • iksnilol

            They sure aren’t :/

          • Tassiebush

            I wonder if something similar could be done with a howa? They come with 10round mags

          • iksnilol

            Probably, though I am strictly in the #MauserMasterRace camp.

          • int19h

            Wait, what? SKS is banned in Norway, but Mini-14 is not?

            What is the criteria that they use? “Military weapon”?

          • iksnilol

            Theoretically all semi autos are banned in Norway, then there’s just a bunch of exceptions.

            for hunting there’s a list of semi auto models that are allowed. Mini-14 and 30 are on that list, SKS isn’t.

          • int19h

            I’m surprised there wasn’t push to remove Mini-14 from that list of exceptions after Breivik. Or is it just too popular for that to fly?

          • Secundius

            Breivik, received “Survivalist Training” by a Former “KGB” agent named Valery Lunev, according to a Belarusian named Mikhail Reshetnikov that was at the Same Survivalist Training Camp. Who probably showed him how to Smuggle In “Banned” Semi-Automatic Weapons into Norway, or even Modify Existing Semi-Automatic Weapons NOT Banned at the Time before the Shootings. Between the Age of 18 to 24 “Breivil” Lost a Lot of Money by either Poor Judgement, Gambling, Business Practices and Stock Market Losses. Those that Knew him the Best saw Changes in His Mental Demeanor. And he got “Rejected” by the Norwegian Defense Security Department for Military Service on a “Psych Evaluation”…

          • iksnilol

            It was removed, only the Mini 14 tho, not the 30 or the Vepr.

          • int19h

            Good to know that gun laws are so uniformly stupid. It reminds me a lot of a similar list in Canada, where all AKs are banned, but they specifically excluded Valmet (but not Saiga or Vepr).

            I have a theory that the degree of fine distinctions in gun laws is inversely proportional to subject knowledge and/or IQ of those authoring them.

          • iksnilol

            Oh, it gets stupider. Because our legislators do have the intelligence to be able to look to other countries for ideas.

            Like, in California “high capacity” feeding devices are banned, but multiple magazines aren’t (thus a KSG, DP-12 or 1216 is legal in Cali). And even before those two guns were made, our legislators wrote in law that a shotgun which can accept more than 5 cartridges (that’s 4 in the mag + 1 in the chamber) is banned (or more correctly, not suited to acquire for hunting or the sports that involve shotguns, if we got some shotgun IPSC going on we could probably have them legal).

            You see the difference in wording? Cali attacked the mag (so thus multiple mags are legal) whilst Norway learned from Cali’s “mistake” before it was apparent and safeguarded against it by going for the shotgun itself.

          • int19h

            Some of the new AWB bills hereabouts also try to target weapons “capable of accepting high-capacity magazines” or some such.

            As far as mag limits on shotguns, I always wonder how things like Aguila Minishells play into that. You could stuff quite a few more of those into that 4-round tube…

            They had similar problems with lever guns and tube-fed .22s for obvious reasons, and newer AWB bills usually specifically exclude both of these categories, but not shotguns.

          • iksnilol

            Also regarding shotguns, what about the other way? If you have a mag tube that can accept four 3.5″ shells, I done reckon that could accept 5 regular shells. Or lever action shotguns that can have one shell in the chamber and another on the carrier. There you would be limited to 3 round mags.
            But it has some relief though, you can have a bigger magazine on the range, it just needs to be plugged for hunting/sport and of course you can’t buy it with the big magazine. So buying a Mossberg 500 with the 4 round mag then adding a 4 round extension is okay. Whilst buying one with a 8 shot mag tube ain’t okay.

          • bmrtoyo

            Gustav:CZ is dangerous?

        • QED

          FYI “Slavaboos” saved your and yours rear ends from the Wehrmacht/Hitler! Just listen to Grieg and be quiet….

          • iksnilol

            Ummm, no, that was Soviets.

            Soviets =/= slavaboos

          • QED

            Red Army soldiers were mostly Slavs, of course.

          • iksnilol

            Yeah,but a slavaboo isn’t a Slav is what I’m saying.

          • QED

            OK, what/who are your “slavaboos” who “cause mayhem with SKS rifles”?

          • iksnilol

            People who aren’t Slavic, yet still insist on wearing adidas tracksuits, squatting all over the place and eating sunflower seeds.

          • QED

            Seems you also have “your own” definitions; thanks for “clarifying” that. Yeah, slavaboos — those wearing adidas tracksuits, squatting all over the place and eating seeds” — as you say — “are causing mayhem with SKS rifles.” That makes as much sense as your posted statement that rifle bullet skin penetration @ entrance is equivalent to bullet retardation in 4″ of gel. I would truly be astounded if you posted something that isn’t silly nonsense. That’s OK, you are probably doing your best……. Don’t worry be happy!

          • iksnilol

            Wait a second, osmium… are you really *that* dumb? Do you really think that I am worried about SKS wielding, Adidas wearing, sunflower seed eating, maniacs that squat everywhere?

            For the record, nobody is causing mayhem in Norway with SKS’ses, or any other rifles for that matter.

            Oh goodness gracious, darlin’, you literal types are the worst.

          • QED

            I have no idea what you are worried about; obviously what you say is not what you mean — you evidently don’t know what you are saying or meaning with it. You, evidently, are really that dumb. Whoever, slavaboos are for you who, according to you, “are causing mayhem with SKS rifles” — they, undoubtedly, make more sense than you. Like I said, you are very very “special.” How did you possibly get that way? Raised a Muslim, as you acknowledged, only partly explains it…

    • Chop Block

      4″ isn’t just equivalent to breaking the skin. If a projectile ONLY makes it 4″ in gel, that’s roughly equivalent to breaking the skin. If it makes it 14″, that’s roughly equivalent to 14″ in a living body, notwithstanding bones. But otherwise, I’d agree.

      • valorius

        Breaking skin equates to about 4″ of gel penetration (going in or out). Iksinol was right.

        • Chop Block

          Negative, Ghost Rider. It’s just another Internet myth that is the result of a misinterpretation of a very specific fact.

          • valorius

            Sorry, but no. Skin is highly elastic and does, in fact, equate to about 4″ of gel penetration.

          • Chop Block

            Skin is, indeed highly elastic. That does not mean that you simply subtract 4″ from properly calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin penetration figures. If you believe that to be the case, I’d like to see a reference to support your claim. Otherwise, I’ll stick with the statements made by Dr Roberts and Dr Fackler that penetration observed in properly prepared and calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin correlates strongly with wounds observed in gunshots on living human beings.

          • valorius

            It does not in fact correlate strongly with wounds in human beings, as human beings are composed of areas of bone, muscle, fatty tissue, rigid organs and even voids of open air.

            What ballistic gelatin does is create a medium where rounds can be tested against each other with a high degree of accuracy.

            I’ll give you a real life example. A friend and I were in a poker game. My buddy ended up getting into an argument with another one of the players, who promptly shot him in the leg at point blank range with a .45 auto loaded with 230gr hardball. This is a round with well over 30″ penetration in gel.
            The round hit him in the thigh, broke his femur, penetrated to the back side of his thigh muscle, just barely poked out the back side of his thigh, and was found sitting literally on top of the seat cushion when he was moved to the ambulance. Total penetration was no more than 10″.

          • Chop Block

            You spelled “anecdote” wrong. The people who are actually qualified to have an opinion on this subject have repeatedly stated that 10% gelatin correlates strongly with wounds observed in actual shooting victims (notwithstanding bone).

          • valorius

            You are misquoting the dentist bud. I also never used the word anecdote.

            He (and others) have said it strongly correlates with wound in muscle tissue.

          • QED

            Nonsense. Never mind quoting any dentist, how about getting informed by the rocket scientist (MacPherson) who did the experiments and calculations which clearly showed that bullet penetration of skin on entry dissipates negligible energy percentage even of typical impacting handgun bullet — let alone a rifle bullet (less than 1/2 inch). Get a clue to avoid making ignorant statement/s!

          • Chop Block

            “The test of the wound profiles validity is how accurately they portray the projectile-tissue
            interaction observed in shots that penetrate the human body. Since most shots in the human body
            traverse various tissues, we would expect the wound profiles to vary somewhat, depending on the
            tissues traversed. However, the only radical departure has been found to occur when the
            projectile strikes bone: this predictably deforms the bullet more than soft tissue, reducing its
            overall penetration depth, and sometimes altering the angle of the projectile’s course. Shots
            traversing only soft tissues in humans have shown damage patterns of remarkably close
            approximation to the wound profiles.

            The bullet penetration depth comparison, as well as the similarity in bullet deformation and yaw
            patterns, between human soft tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin have proven to be consistent and
            reliable. Every time there appeared to be an inconsistency a good reason was found and when the
            exact circumstances were matched, the results matched. The cases reported here comprise but a
            small fraction of the documented comparisons which have established 10% ordnance gelatin as a
            valid tissue simulant.” – Dr. Fackler

          • QED

            Martin Fackler, M.D., had certainly done pioneering and scientific terminal ballistics wound studies that are certainly worth quoting. Gary Roberts, D.D.S., on the other hand, not so much.

          • valorius

            I’m pretty dubious of the dentist myself.

          • valorius

            NATO uses 20% gel. Why?

          • QED

            Don’t even try to understand “why” — it requires some basic knowledge of terminal ballistics which, based on your posts here, is evidently totally beyond your comprehension. Carry on!

          • valorius

            We all know that translates to: “Gee, i don’t know why. I have posted no data to back my claims and can offer only insults to cover for my lack of knowledge.”

            Have a nice day!

          • QED

            Of course you don’t know why — so don’t ask such questions for which you cannot understand answers; only a fool would try to teach you about terminal ballistics after your blatant and persistent display of ignorance in your posts here. The answer, of course, is almost self-evident for anyone with some knowledge of terminal ballistics — obviously not you. However, carry on!

          • iksnilol

            Again, you blabber about 10% gel whilst NATO uses 20% gel.

            Has to be an advantage/reason to 20% gel considering it is more expensive (and we know that NATO is stingy wherever it can be). And I am kinda trusting NATO more than a random guy on the internet. I mean, they’ve kinda shot a bunch of people so they know what they’re doing.

          • QED

            Since you stated that you are from Norway, it is understandable that your command of English is limited — however, I made no statement or “blabber” about 10% gel being preferable or not to 20% gel. In fact, both have their advantages and disadvantages as tissue simulants — depending on application, of course. Incidentally, shooting people — even lots of people — does not necessarily make one a terminal ballistics expert!

          • iksnilol

            Well, you’re constantly mentioning 10% gel whilst ignoring 20% gel.

            So yeah, blabbing it is.

          • QED

            Apparently your command and comprehension of English language is very poor indeed; that explains your erroneous and nonsensical comments. It’s late in Norway — apparently and quite understandably you don’t have a wife or a girlfriend to “blabber with”. Terminal ballistics obviously is not your cup of tea — and neither is English language. Go penetrate some 20% gel with your 4 inches instead — comrade silly!

          • iksnilol

            Ah, can’t respond with arguments so you resort to ad hominems.

            Seems as I may have struck a nerve.

          • QED

            No, you just displayed that you are thoroughly silly, comrade. There is no argument about that.

          • iksnilol

            No, that was you.

          • QED

            Clearly, you’ve got nothing to contribute other than silly nonsense — evidently due to your profound lack of comprehension, particularly of terminal ballistics. Or maybe you are under 10 years of age…..

          • iksnilol

            AWww, did I hurt your widdle feelings?

            Do you need a safe space, snowflake?

          • QED

            No, but you do prove that Einstein was right when he stated that human stupidity is infinite.

          • iksnilol

            Well, duh, everything is infinite. Since the universe keeps expanding.

            But eh, I’ll give you 3/5 at least for being somewhat creative with your insult.

          • QED

            Wow, you know about numbers 3, 4, and 5 — I’m impressed with your “intellect.” Perhaps if you are given infinite period of time you could post something that’s not silly nonsense — but I wouldn’t bet on it.

          • Chop Block

            “The IWBA published some of Gene Wolberg’s material from his study of San Diego PD officer involved
            shootings that compared bullet performance in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin with the autopsy
            results using the same ammunition. When I last spoke with Mr. Wolberg in May of 2000, he had
            collected data on nearly 150 OIS incidents which showed the majority of the 9mm 147 gr bullets
            fired by officers had penetrated 13 to 15 inches and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. Several other agencies with strong, scientifically based “The IWBA published some of Gene Wolberg’s material from his study of San Diego PD officer involved
            shootings that compared bullet performance in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin with the autopsy
            results using the same ammunition. When I last spoke with Mr. Wolberg in May of 2000, he had
            collected data on nearly 150 OIS incidents which showed the majority of the 9mm 147 gr bullets
            fired by officers had penetrated 13 to 15 inches and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. Several other agencies with strong, scientifically based “The IWBA published some of Gene Wolberg’s material from his study of San Diego PD officer involved
            shootings that compared bullet performance in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin with the autopsy
            results using the same ammunition. When I last spoke with Mr. Wolberg in May of 2000, he had
            collected data on nearly 150 OIS incidents which showed the majority of the 9mm 147 gr bullets
            fired by officers had penetrated 13 to 15 inches and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. Several other agencies with strong, scientifically based ammunition terminal performance testing programs have conducted similar reviews of their shooting
            incidents with much the same results–there is an extremely strong correlation between properly
            conducted and interpreted 10% ordnance gelatin laboratory studies and the physiological effects of
            projectiles in actual shooting incidents.” – Dr. Roberts

          • valorius

            I’m not sure what 147gr 9mm penetration has to do with the original point of Iksinol, which is that skin equates to up to 4″ of gel penetration.

            “extremely strong correlation” in a “majority of” shootings does not mean analogous.

            Also, again- NATO mandates 20% gel in testing. If 10% is ideal, why does NATO use 20%?

            Gel is great because a lab in California can get the same results that a lab in NY or Florida does with consistency. But it is not analagous to shooting a living thing, because living things are not a homogenous medium like ballistic gel is.

            A shot that slips through the ribs and enters the lungs is nothing like a shot through the pelvis. Where the skin elasticity really comes into play is where a bullet has to penetrate an intermediate meat barrier like an arm before entering the torso.

            If you doubt this, feel free to ask Roberts himself. He posts on several gun forums. He will tell you himself that skin elasticity is a factor in penetration that is not represented in a gel block shot. It’s also widely different depending on species of critter. Some species hides could equate to as much as 12″ of gel testing.

            Anyone that hunts knows that gel performance often gives far more penetration than real world hunting does. For instance, i carry Underwood 380+P extreme penetrators in my RUGER LCP carry pistol. They give in excess of 30″ of penetration in gel. They might give 1/2 that penetration in an animal with big heavy bone structures. Maybe even less.

          • QED

            Skin elasticity (on entry) plays a totally negligible role in reducing rifle bullet penetration — very simply because such bullet typically loses negligible amount of its kinetic energy due to penetration of the skin.

        • QED

          No, penetration of skin (“going in”) equates to next to infinitesimal “equivalent gel penetration.” Penetration with or without skin (in gel or soft tissue) — is virtually identical for typical rifle bullets. Got it?

          • valorius

            Sorry but you’re quite wrong.

          • QED

            You just don’t seem to comprehend that at RIFLE IMPACT VELOCITIES energy dissipation in just a very few inches of gel — due to large inertial forces — is FAR greater than the energy required to penetrate a relatively thin skin. WE ARE NOT TALKING HERE ABOUT A FEW HUNDRED FEET/SECOND BULLET VELOCITY WHERE YOUR 2-3″ GEL PENETRATION /SKIN PENETRATION ANALOGY IS VALID. Since you evidently don’t understand basic physics concepts of velocity, force, and energy — sensible discussion of this topic is not suitable for you. Read and try to understand more and post less!

          • valorius

            I posted facts backed up by links bro.

            A rifle bullet EXITING a body (such as a forearm before striking the torso) has far less energy and velocity than when it hits the body, yes? it also presents a far greater frontal area, yes? Projectile fragments EXITING or re-entering the body have far less energy than when initially impacting, yes? You are only viewing a very narrow possible scenario, which is initial bullet entry into the body through the skin. You are totally ignoring exit and re-entry wounds.

            Skin elasticity absolutely affects bullet penetration. You are dead wrong, i suggest you take your own advice.

          • QED

            Your previous silly statements that a rifle bullet (or even typical SD handgun rounds) “at entry” will experience something on the order of 4″ equivalent gel penetration reduction– due to penetration of elastic skin — is, as I stated before, baseless nonsense based on your clear misunderstanding of relevant basic physics concepts. Read a lot more, hopefully understand a lot more, and post less! Really!

          • valorius

            Actually, no. I merely stated that skin can equate to up to 4″ of gel penetration. I didn’t specify parameters at all. You said “no it can’t.”

            After you insisted i was wrong, i explained exactly why it can, posted a link to back my claim, and then even posted the scientific formula used to calculate skin elasticity.

            You were wrong, and Iksonil was right. You should apologize for being a know it all who doesn’t know it all.

          • QED

            That’s right — you and Iksonil (to his credit he probably realized his misunderstanding and didn’t persist in ignorance like you) are wrong in your claims that “GOING IN or out” penetration of skin can reduce penetration by about 4″ gel equivalent. As I and CB attempted to explain “going in” penetration retardation due to skin is thoroughly negligible and becomes a factor ONLY AFTER bullet velocity slows down to only a few hundred feet per second. It’s clear, you just don’t get it. But hey, that’s OK, don’t worry be happy.

          • valorius

            I said it can reduce penetration ‘up to 4″‘, repeatedly.

            I also made it clear that the “in” i was discussing was largely in reference to re-entry wounds. However, i did post a link to a site that claims 2″ of initial gel penetration equivalency for a torso hit.

            But hey, it’s OK, don’t worry- be happy. 😉

          • QED

            You evidently don’t understand/remember what you yourself posted — let alone whether someone else’s Internet post has any validity. Feel free to quote, misinterpret/ take out of context whatever you like — just don’t confuse it with relevant facts. Your posts do, however, provide comic relief — sort of. The good news is that no one with any knowledge of terminal ballistics deems your ” rifle bullet skin entry/4″ (or 3 or 2″ for that matter) gel penetration equivalence theory” as anything but a profound display of persisted utmost ignorance. What is actually very sad is that you have probably been playing with guns for quite a while — yet you have somehow remained profoundly ignorant of basic terminal ballistics…. There is only one explanation for this, and it’s most likely and very unfortunately a permanent impairment. Thus, I advised you not to worry and be happy. Cheers!

          • valorius

            LMAO, your condescension is adorable but unwarranted. All you’ve offered is insults with absolutely zero facts to support your insupportable position. I have however linked to sites which back my statements. So in the end, you’re still wrong. 🙂

          • QED

            Sure — in “your universe.” You just don’t realize how silly ignorant you are — especially as you try to “make up” for it with irrelevant links and comments. Hopeless! Carry on!

          • iksnilol

            Oh noes, I am in Norway so my time schedule is different. I am one hunnid with my bruh V to the alorious.

        • QED

          Hopefully, now, even you can perhaps, maybe, appreciate that a rifle bullet “going in,” penetrating the skin, DOES NOT equate to about 4″ of gel penetration; NO ONE HERE has argued that IF THE BULLET SLOWS DOWN TO FEW HUNDRED FEET PER SECOND THAT THEN SKIN ELASTICITY DOES NOT PLAY A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN PENETRATION REDUCTION. Comprehension of very basic physics is all that was required to get this simple concept….. GOOD LUCK!

          • valorius

            We are talking about more than just “going in” bud. Bullets also “go out.” They also go back in after “going out.”

            Example: Bullet hits perps forearm. Penetrates arm, exits, goes back in torso.

            Skin absolutely reduces penetration. It is a fact, i even kindly posted the formula for skin simulant used by scientists to determine how much it affects penetration.

            Iksinol was right, you were wrong.

          • QED

            Let me try to give you a clue… If you fire a rifle bullet at your adversary and that bullet doesn’t do its job by the time it slows down to a few hundred feet per second — and is THUS stopped by the skin — failing to penetrate the skin “going out” is the very least of your concerns. Again, you are evidently simply incapable of comprehending the differences between shear and inertial forces exerted on tissues by rifle bullets at typical impact velocities and when such bullets are slowed down to a small fraction of those typical impact velocities. Actually, bud, if you replace skin “going in” by sheet steel (even you might, perhaps, understand that steel has far greater shear strength than skin) — that “substitution” would also hardly make any difference in subsequent gel or tissue penetration (assuming the bullet stays intact of course). However, in your own mind you are always right so be it — no one can penetrate that kind of a barrier! Thanks for the laughs, bud.

          • MisterTheory

            WHAT?

      • Doug Simpson

        This is the most pedantic reply I think I’ve ever seen. No one read the comment that way except you.

    • QED

      Wrong. 4 inches in ballistic gel is NOT equivalent to breaking skin — especially for rifle bullets. If skin was placed before the gel in this test, penetration would have been virtually the same. Can you post anything that’s not silly nonsense?

  • J.T.

    I might stop and see if Walmart has any in stock.

    • Ken

      I think SGAmmo said on their website that they had the factory make it just for them. No idea if that’s true, but they basically do that with Golden Tiger.

      • Chop Block

        This is correct. At the moment, it’s an SG Ammo exclusive. I’m sure Tula would be happy to make more of it if it sells well and if they’re contract allows.

  • PK

    Glad to hear that it’s back. They’ll sell plenty.

  • Will P.

    Just ordered 200rds, thanks for the heads up TFB!

  • Beardedrambler

    Indoor ranges make a lot off once fired brass.

    • FLdeepdiver

      It is a minor drop in the bucket vs. operational costs. Air filters alone are thousands of USD per week.

      We have found it more cost effective to sell it to a scrap metal company.

  • FlaBoy

    Regarding accuracy, try using a CZ 527 carbine. Using it, I’ve shot one inch groups at 100 yards using cheap, Tula ammo. I’ve read where others, using quality American ammo, have shot half inch groups. It’s the gun, not the round. After getting an M&M M10X, a semi-auto, black rife with a floating barrel, I sold all my AKs because of the accuracy difference.

    • Russ Kell

      Agreed on the 527. Love my little carbine and how accurate it can be with bulk steel cased ammo. Everyone who tries it on the silhouette range at my club is very, very surprised at how far out it can reach accurately.

    • Toxie

      It’s balderdash that it’s the gun, not the round. It’s a combination of both, as any experienced shooter knows.
      You have shot some 1″ groups with wolf ammunition, but I can guarantee that such isn’t readily repeatable. When speaking accuracy, CONSISTANCY is equally important. A gun/ammo combo that churns out groups between 1″ and 5″ isn’t comparable to a weapon/ammunition combo that churns out 1.5″ groups consistently.

      • Chop Block

        Exactly. Most of these claims are either internet distance (not actually 100 yards) or a three shot group.

        • FlaBoy

          Distance measured with Redfield Range Finder from bench using Lead Sled, Meopta 6-18×50 scope, using CZ single set trigger set, Tula 154gr soft point ammo, windless day with trees on both side of shooting lane, temp about 78F, slow fire, best group of the day. Granted, most groups were 1.5 inch to 2 inch, with the 4th and or 5th shot opening it up. First three shots often within half inch. Later changed to Meopta 3.5-10×44 scope – more suitable for this gun, sighted in for the 154gr soft point, averaging 1.5 inch to 2 inch 5 shot groups with very tight first 2 or 3 shot groups, usually half inch. When hunting, I don’t usually fire more than two shots – usually just one.

          Note on Mepota scopes: amazing glass for the price. Clarity and brightness are amazing. Every friend who looks through them is surprised. The only problem is now I’m disappointed with all my other scopes. Better than my Redfield, Nikon, and Leopold Vari3 scopes, which I plan to replace with Meoptas. Also better glass than my Vortex 1-6×24 Strike Eagle, although that scope is obviously designed for a different purpose.

          • Well, there it is. Three shot groups don’t tell us much. Ten, cold bore shots give a much more accurate picture of the accuracy potential of a given load an rifle.

          • Jimmy D

            This is the part where you, Chop Block, say “I stand corrected”.

          • Chop Block

            No, it’s the part where I remain suspicious, but I didn’t want to be a jerk out loud.

          • Jimmy D

            Fair enough. You clearly don’t need me to lecture you on the pitfalls of calling viewers liars.

            In any event, I love this ammo and appreciated the video (from 1:56 on).

        • Bob

          when you are in combat (I thought we were talking about the bullet being “designed to wound” rather then kill) you are exactly looking to shoot a “good group”
          One minute of man works and the faster the better. Trust me!

          • Wow!

            Exactly. One thing a lot of new guys don’t get for close quarters is that shooting a tight group in a person is not what you want. You can’t make a hole “penetrate more”. Either fire one single shot, or have your next shot impact a different part of the body otherwise it will just pass through with little effect.

            A big reason the MAC and other high rate of fire weapons were considered effective by the few groups that used them was that the high rate of fire and more difficult control on full auto actually helped disperse the impact across a broader area, but still could be fired on semi auto with great accuracy. This is the big reason the Israeli Micro Uzi follows the MAC’s theory of use.

            That said, if given the situation, I rather use skill to disperse my shot placement than rely on a firearms inherent imprecision. Going back to the topic, I too have been able to get MOA groups with bulk steel case ammo. One factor that has to be realized is that most shooters are not capable of shooting a MOA group to begin with. Any testing of any firearm should always be done on a rest with a remote trigger (ideally hydraulic, but most are mechanical like the ransom rest) to get an idea of the firearms true accuracy. Most are normally surprised by these results. This style of nearly error free precision tests used to be standard, but it seems that some people just forgot about it or was too expensive due to the rise of online reviewers vs publications. Not that online reviewing is a bad thing, just that most are not very professional aside from “I haven’t had any malfunctions after firing X tens of rounds, trigger is nice, manageable recoil, looks cool”, and that generally doesn’t tell me anything concrete I need to know to make my purchase.

      • FlaBoy

        “…it’s the gun, not the round. It’s a combination of both, …” To this, I would add practice, as in practice, practice, practice, which is why I went with 7.62×39 to start with and chose metal Russian ammo. I can afford to shoot it a lot. The other choice was .223/5.56, which is suitable for shooting people, but not as suitable for hunting deer as a non-FMJ 7.62 round. I also have a .308, but it’s not really needed for our small Florida deer. A 30-30 is plenty, which the 7.62×39 is similar to and a whole lot cheaper. One huge variable is the consistency of Russian ammo, as I understand they often change components, so that’s a big trade off for affordability. I’ve been buying in 1000 round lots (fear buying before the election), so expect some consistency within each lot. Also, there are differences between brands. Gel test show that some brands of the 154gr soft points do not expand as expected. Got a bunch of Herters 154gr SP on sale with free shipping and it totally failed the gel expansion test, so use it for target practice.

      • iksnilol

        That’s precision, not accuracy.

    • CommonSense23

      How many rounds were you firing on a group.

      • FlaBoy

        Five. See detailed response to Chop Block above.

  • Ed

    Easy solution: get a AK-74 then.

    • andrey kireev

      And be stuck with limited availability ammunition, that’s often more expensive than plain 7.62×39… I know, I have two of them.

      • Chop Block

        And garbage terminal effect? No thank you.

        • andrey kireev

          Terminal effect is fine for either. Whichever you pick, has it’s advantages/ Disadvantages. You poke enough holes in someone and they will just stop fighting. From logistical standpoint 7.62×39 is a lot more common these days… It didn’t help that ATF banned cheap surplus 7N6 imports… That’s when I started to move away from 5.45 and get more 7.62 AKs

          • Chop Block

            There aren’t any expanding or fragmenting loads for 5.45mm, so far as I am aware. The binodal yaw exhibited by 7N6 is a relatively ineffective wounding mechanism.

          • Blaine

            What about at distances of 100m and below? Is there a significant difference between the 7.62 and 5.45? I’m ignorant on the AK.

          • Chop Block

            There’s noting wrong with the 5.45mm cartridge, it’s just that there aren’t any good bullets available for it (that I know of). There are several good bullets for 7.62x39mm. Aside from the 8M3, Federal Fusion, CORBON DPX, and Hornady SST/Zombie Max are all excellent. Most Russian soft point also does well in 7.62x39mm. There may be some 5.45x39mm Russian soft point that performs well, but I haven’t tested it.

          • clampdown

            That expensive 108 grain/2500 ft/sec CORBON hunting load is nasty…but I think they were $50/20 at my LGS. Insane.

          • clampdown

            I don’t keep my SKS loaded, but I’ve got a pouch with 2 strippers of the cheap Russian hollowpoints on the stock, and one with my last 10 of the CORBONs. I know they aren’t the best, but from what I’ve seen, they (the Russian HPs) are the least likely of the cheap 7.62×39 loads to go through my house because they fragment pretty easily.

          • Chop Block

            As stated in the article, most Russian hike point does not fragment or expand.

          • Machinegunnertim

            Wolf 5.45×39 S.P.’s perform very well form what reviews I’ve seen. Just look on youtube or google it if you have to. The problem is availability really comes and goes. And there’s the Hornady 5.45 Vmax.

          • andrey kireev

            Hornady makes some ballistic tip rounds for them as well.. plus russians wouldn’t be using those if they were ineffective. They did good enough in afghanistan, where they didn’t switch back to 7.62×39, neither have they done it after both wars in chechnya…. I wouldn’t call it a pudd round

          • Chop Block

            The Hornady VMAX is for varmints and penetrates Inadequately.

          • andrey kireev

            So do u want penetration or fragmentation/expansion? Because you generally don’t get both

          • QED

            Yes, adequate penetration and reasonably large “not so temporary” cavity, and expansion and fragmentation — that obviously puts 5.56 and 5.45 out of consideration for very effective one-shot self-defense against bipeds.

          • andrey kireev

            I could cut that sarcasm with the knife =P 7.62×39 does seem to have a tendency to overpen at closer ranges… but so does everything else. I’m just saying people are unlikely to be very effective after get shot with pretty much anything. Sure it might be a smaller hole… but if you’re having a sucking chest wound itso still a big deal

          • QED

            No sarcasm, just reality. You apparently would be surprised how effective SOME people could be after being shot with 5.45, 5.56, etc. Since one never knows what kind of people with what kind of endurance one will encounter in a self-defense situation, it is hardly wise to count on “averages” (where just brandishing anything may suffice, loaded or unloaded), or expect to be able to shoot as many times as necessary to “end the threat” (in which case use a .380ACP, or .22LR). Suit yourself…

          • andrey kireev

            Of course, well ventilated bad guys assume room temperature quicker… the idea is to shoot until threat neutralized.

          • QED

            Sure, just get your armed attacker to pose for you while you continue shooting until he is “neutralized.” Then, of course, you could employ your 5.45, 5.56, .22LR, etc. very effectively. Lots of luck!

          • clampdown

            5.45 is about as cheap as 7.62 here in Central GA. They almost always have it for ~$5-6/box at Academy.

          • andrey kireev

            Was hard to find in UT… and really hard to find in AK….. and I can’t order any online, because they dont ship any to AK

  • Tritro29

    I don’t know where it comes from, but as a defensive round the M43/M67 and M84 are wrecking havoc in Syria and Ukraine. To the point Ukrainians are seen more and more with old trash from the Soviet Era. I really don’t understand what you claim as defensive use, but seeing more and more Go Pros with close range encounters when a double tap sends most guys in Hell. Maybe we’re not looking at the same definition.

    • Chop Block

      Apples and dump trucks.

  • randomswede

    “Russian ammo makers seem to change components more often than Bruce Jenner changes his mind.” There’s literally no way to convey that without involving politics…
    “Russian ammo makers switch components at will and without notice …” Oh… No there it is, just a few rows below.

    • Fox Hunter

      It aint as funny. And nothing political about some freak changing his mind, that’s what freaks do, we should not worry about the hysterics of liberals who defend all manner of sin and sicko-ness.

      • DonDrapersAcidTrip

        The only freak here is your scumbag sociopathic ass that finds it easier to default towards predatory attitudes and behavior than empathy towards other human beings.

        and it’s always you types that rant about the “sins” of others. dehumanizing others inbetween church visits, all in a days work for you hypocritical b.s. artists. and reblog isis memes all day on facebook while being absolutely clueless how you are just the redneck christian version of isis yourself, only you don’t actually have the sand to do anything fantasize about purging people from society for not being like your iq of 80 ass.

        • Machinegunnertim

          I’ve known hundreds of church goers and none of them are like that.

          • iksnilol

            And I’ve known hundreds that are like that.

          • QED

            But, undoubtedly, there are very, very few that are like you — you are indeed very “special.” That’s very good — especially since you are far away….

          • iksnilol

            Not really, I don’t consider myself unique.

            I am just thankful I am not like the brainwashed robots congregating at mosques and churches at set times. They spew only hate. They either damn you, or want your money in the majority of cases.

          • QED

            Let me take a really wild guess — you are an atheist…. ! Obviously, then, anyone going to any church is brainwashed and spews only hate. You got that figured out just like you understand terminal ballistics….. ! LOL.

          • iksnilol

            No, actually not an atheist. Just my experiemce from all the churches and mosques I’ve been to.

          • QED

            So you are purportedly then the only “holy” one among all the people “from all the churches and mosques you’ve been to”! You are very special, indeed, as noted previously. What were you doing in “all the churches AND mosques that you’ve been to”? Are you a follower of that savage, brutal conquistador “prophet of Allah” Mohamed? It’s seems impossible that you are actually Christian. Or maybe you are your own god, thus perhaps you deem yourself not an atheist. LOL. You sure are amusing…

          • iksnilol

            Not really, was raised muslim, but I am of open mind. So I have visited churches and temples.

            Different wrappers, same crap.

            Everybody is the only way to salvation.

            I don’t understand why you consider me “holy”.

          • QED

            Elementary to the limit. If you have known “hundreds of church goers who are brainwashed robots who spew hate,” that implies, of course, that you are above that sort of transgression — ie. a relatively “holy” man. Sorry, can’t make it any simpler. And, alas, evidently there is no way that some want to understand the night/day, 180.0 degree difference between Christianity and Islam (at least until they get Sharia laws and then it will probably be too late).
            I figured, based on your posts, that you may well be under some sort of “Islamic influence”– most certainly not Christianity. That seems to be the way of the future in Europe as most of Europe seems on its way toward Islamization and perhaps Sharia laws (courtesy of that savage and brutal conquistador Mohamed, who is the founder of Islam and “prophet of Allah”). Hey, but don’t worry be happy. You do, indeed create your own “salvation”!

          • iksnilol

            I don’t spew hate, you’re correct in that. But I don’t consider myself “holy”. I am just trying to be the person Mr. Rogers knew I could be.

            From personal experience, your run of the mill Christian or Muslim ain’t really different. Go to place of worship, mumble something, listen to an old guy tell y’all going to go to hell. Wash, rinse, repeat, ad infinitum.

            Also, “islamic influence”? That one’s hilarious, comrade. 😉

          • QED

            Obviously you don’t know Christians. Undoubtedly, most/nearly all Christians would avoid communicating with you about anything except perhaps superficial stuff (good day, good bye, etc.) — because it is patently obvious that you are thoroughly “set” in your philosophy — and you certainly are entitled to it.

          • iksnilol

            Wouldn’t that be un-Christan of them? I found them very talkative. They’re very keen on converting people. For that, you need to talk.

          • QED

            Not at all. Talking to you about anything meaningful could be likened to “casting pearls to the swine” — something that is strongly discouraged in the New Testament. See, you have no clue about Christianity (or anything else you posted about here) — so just stick to Islam that you were raised on, as it certainly is much more suited for you. CHRISTIANITY IS NOT FOR EVERYONE!

          • iksnilol

            Now that’s very un-Christian of you. Also, I do have more than a clue about Christianity. Again, I don’t badmouth stuff without trying to understand it. And considering I grew up in a small Christian community that crap was practically crammed down the throat from day one and that included going to church service during school time.

            I like how I seemingly struck a nerve with you.

            Did I hurt your widdle feelings? Do you need a safe space?

          • QED

            Most obviously you have no idea what is “Christian.” Actually, it is quite common and somewhat amusing for atheists, Muslims, etc. to “define” what in their fictional, baseless view makes a “Christian.” You know as much about what is Christianity and what makes a Christian as you evidently know about terminal ballistics — next to nothing. Any Christian who would waste time with you to “get” you to understand Christianity would have to be hopelessly naive. Clearly, you are far more suited for Islam — the religion that you were raised on and that was concocted by that savage, brutal conquistador Mohamed, regarded by Muslims as the true “prophet of Allah.”

          • iksnilol

            Well, then tell me what is a Christian. is it not kindness and love for your fellow man ? Is it not to love thy mother and father ? Do you not want to save my soul, or your own for that matter?

            But yeah, I don’t want to talk to you anymore. You don’t contribute anything (except for saying “wrong, wrong, wrong” over and over again) and you are extremely condenscending. But I should not be surprised, you whining about me being ignorant while you yourself are ignorant would be funny if it were not tragic (As an FYI, so you don’t embarass yourself in the future. Muslims don’t consider Muhammad “the true prophet of God” like you suggest, but more correctly the last prophet. Muslims consider Moses and Jesus as prophets as well, a really long line of prophets).

            So I bed thee a good day and good luck in your future endeavors.

          • QED

            Ok, you somehow managed to ask a reasonable question! As I’ve already implied, a Christian is a person who faithfully attempts to follow the teaching of J.C. — spelled out in the New Testament. It is up to each and every individual to secure his own salvation — or not. Salvation is a gift, but each individual must take certain steps toward securing it.

            As far as your claim that “Muslims do not consider Muhammad the true prophet of God” — you are being incredibly silly ignorant yet again. Muhammad/Mohamed founded Islam, wrote the Quran and is the conduit for the “will of Allah” and inspiration (as a savage brutal conquistador) for Muslims — of course.

            As far as your silly clam that Moses and Jesus are revered as much or nearly as much as founder of Islam, Mohamed — that’s, again, utter ignorant nonsense. What Moses and Jesus have taught about God is completely different than what Mohamed teaches about Allah — these are mutually exclusive “gods.” In fact, Muslims imply that Jesus was a liar — because He said that He was God, Himself – BUT for Muslims only “Allah as revealed by Mohamed” is god. Also, although Quran mentions the Bible, Moses, and Jesus, nowhere in the Bible is there any reference to Mohamed or Allah — of course.
            Believe what you want — your ignorance and arrogance is truly astounding. Hopefully, there are only a precious few in Norway like you….. Don’t worry just be happy!

          • iksnilol

            I thought you were gonna be reasonable but hten you went ahead and did done forget your pills. I am amazed how you know better muslim teachings than people who’ve grown up with them and discussed them the majority of their life.

            Bye, Felicia.

          • QED

            Don’t worry about understanding anything, you’ll get a headache and just hopelessly confuse yourself . You are quite “special” and I’m sure that only a very limited number of very “special” people who are willing to discuss anything of any significance with you. Like the blind leading the blind and talking about what they “see.” Just be happy that your breathing is entirely unconscious and automatic and thus does not require your “thinking”…

          • iksnilol

            Again, the condenscending act is boring.

            Also, again, it is you who claim I am special, not me.

            But that’s hard to understand for such a hateful individual such as yourself. Be glad that your autonomous nervous system truly is autonomous.

          • iksnilol

            Also, how stupid are you? Of course there ain’t no reference to Muhammad in the Bible. THE BIBLE WAS FROM BEFORE MUHAMMADS TIME.

            It’s like saying why doesn’t the constitution of the US say anything about the internet.

          • QED

            Your incredible silly ignorance continues with no amelioration. If Mohamed/Quran/Allah are not fiction, then, if the Bible is not fiction, the Bible should have made a prophetic reference to Mohamed/Quran/Allah, especially since the later has vastly different characteristics than the God of the Bible. I will not attempt to discuss here numerous facts why the Bible, particularly the N.T., have overwhelming historical evidence to support it’s validity (unlike any other “religion”). Indeed, as pointed out, to Muslims Jesus must be a liar because only Allah is god for Muslims and Jesus claimed that He was God. Hence your previous point that Mohamed is just another prophet in Islam, like Jesus, is, yet again, more utterly silly nonsense.
            A Ph.D. mathematician in ’40s has calculated that the probability of anyone but J.C. fulfilling the prophesies made in the Old Testament regarding the “savior” — SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE CHRIST — is next to infinitesimal (makes winning any lottery a sure thing by comparison). In fact, there are numerous prophecies and references throughout O.T. about J.C. (with next to zero probability it could have been anyone else) — some a thousand years or more before Christ. Surely, since Mohamed/Quran/Allah are so radically different than the God of the Bible — there would have been a prophesy/warning in the Bible that God is about to undergo a radical personality change and adopt characteristics of ” Mohamed’s Allah.” Mohamed’s Allah and God of the Bible couldn’t be more different and are mutually exclusive (if one is valid the other cannot be).

            Yeah, Einstein was right. Human stupidity can be infinite; you are proof of it, if anyone is. Forget about trying to understand anything significant; it’s evidently beyond you — just don’t worry and be happy!

          • iksnilol

            Why should the bible have made a “prophetic reference”, are you so arrogant so as to believe yourself to know how God thinks and what he should do?

          • QED

            God, of course, doesn’t undergo a radical “personality change” necessary to “become Allah” — His will is made clear and spelled out well enough for (most) humans so that anyone except infinitely stupid can understand it. No wonder you are having difficulty understanding the Bible — just stick to Mohamed/Quran/Allah that you were raised on. For someone who evidently knows next to nothing, like you, discerning the difference between the Bible and the Quran may not be easy… That’s why, you shouldn’t worry about it. Just be happy…

          • iksnilol

            See, that’s the part I’m struggling with. If his will and personality is so clear then why is both the Bible and the Quran so self-contradicting ?

            I mean, in one part god just straight up drowns the world, and in another says that killing one innocent is akin to killing the world.

            I tihnk you should follow your own advice, “don’t worry, be happy”.

          • QED

            Simple, except, evidently, for a monumental simpleton like you. What God does, since He is the Creator of all is one thing. Sure floods (among other “natural” phenomena) occurred, wiping out lots of living creatures. God could, of course, vaporize/obliterate any star/planet (even Earth) at any time without you or anyone else helping Him calculate the ramifications or justifications. HOWEVER, what a brutal and savage conquistador (Mohamed) instructs the “Islamic faithful” to do, specifically kill the “infidels” is something else. It seems that you are so stupid that you equate what God/Creator does/can do to what Mohamed instructs “his faithful” to do. Instead of Norway, perhaps you should reside in the Islamic Paradise of Iran, among other places, so you can get to “know’ Islam a bit better… From your viewpoint, if the Ayatollahs (followers of that savage brutal conquistador Mohamed) could cause a massive flood (in pursuit of their fervent jihad)– that would be just as good or bad as the previous massive floods… LOL. You demonstrate nothing short of infinite stupidity — over and over again.

          • iksnilol

            Bible contradictions:
            https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html

            Quran contradicitons:
            http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/

            I don’t know what your rant was about, but it sure as all git wasn’t about incosistencies in the bible and quran.

          • iksnilol

            Also, a really good source that “Ph.D mathematician” without a name or trace.

            Y’know, my good friend who’s a Ph.D in aeorospace engineering told me that raisins are actually grapes.

          • Secundius

            And “Wild Rice” is actually “Grass Seed”…

          • QED

            Perhaps you have finally mentioned something that you can understand — just as long as it can go in your mouth.

          • Secundius

            Actually, I’ve Known “iksnilol” Longer than you. A “Believe” HIM more than YOU. He and I have “Butted Heads” on Occasions too. But HE’s “Honest” in his “Thinking” and his “Beliefs”…

          • QED

            Peter Stoner, Ph.D., professor of mathematics — definitely not the same as grapes or raisins. Hope you are not hopelessly confused by the distinction… Yeah, a Ph.D. in engineering talks to YOU — about raisins and grapes. If so, that’s probably because you might “understand” only what you can put in your mouth…

          • iksnilol

            Yeah, checked him out a long time ago. Often used by christian apologists, such as thineself.

            : “…the author has fallen into the commonest error of using only these facts which bolster his hypothesis, and of discarding or controverting those which do not. For example, his discussion of the theory of evolution is not only misleading; it displays an abysmal ignorance of recent evolutionary studies.”[9]

            C. P. Swanson (1953). “Science Speaks. An Evaluation of Certain Christian Evidences. By Peter W. Stoner.”. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 28 (4): 408–409. doi:10.1086/399872.

            Now, you’ve struck a nerve with me. You’re trying to pass superstition of as science.

          • QED

            Only a totally clueless ignoramus like you would summarily dismiss a mathematical calculation/publication by a Ph.D. and professor of mathematics. Where is another Ph.D. in mathematics who factually challenged Dr. Stoner’s calculation? You evidently and demonstrably understand nothing that has been discussed here — the only reason that I continue with your extreme nonsense is to see how stupid you really are. So far, you have exceeded my wildest expectations. Now go and “study” Ali Baba and Mohamed — that may be at your “scholarly” level . LOL.

          • iksnilol

            Yeah, bub, prophecies and fantasy aren’t science. So yeah, I can kinda dismiss a “Ph.D” in religious conspiracies.

            I’d a done say you can’t say that. Cause it is you who’ve exceeded anything resembling expectations. You religious apologists really could go past the edge of the universe if it is to deny the possiblity of your fantasies/hallucinations being true.

          • QED

            To a monumental ignoramus like you set in his profoundly idiotic views, highly learned scholars with a Ph.D. naturally are irrelevant. As I suspected from the outset of your expose of your infinite stupidity — you are an atheist, despite your claim to the contrary. That’s why you stated that “hundreds of those (that you supposedly know, LOL) who attend churches or mosques are brainwashed robots.” You are THE dumbest AND most ignorant BUT most arrogant atheist that I have ever encountered anywhere (among thousands) — the good thing for those in U.S. is that you are some 4000 miles away. Now, if your looks match your “intellect” you should be very easy to avoid. Whatever you do, don’t go outside except in darkness and don’t look in the mirror — it could very well be more incapacitating than anything firearm related that is discussed here. Pathetic, really.

          • iksnilol

            And you ran outta arguments hours ago and have just resorted to ad hominem attacks. Really repetitive ad hominem attacks. Don’t you know insults other than “ignoramus”?

          • Secundius

            One “Probable” reason for “Muhammad” NOT being it the “Holy Bible is. Because Muhammad “Wasn’t” Born until ~570 AD. And God (Allah) 4,473 times in the New Testament and 4,635 time =s in BOTH the “Old” and “New” Testament Combined…

          • QED

            No, the obvious reason is that the Bible doesn’t offer specific prophesies about something that that savage, brutal conquistador Mohamed concocted about fictional god he called “Allah.” Likewise, there are many “religions” and fairly tales concocted since Christ that the Bible doesn’t address specifically.

          • Machinegunnertim

            I call B.S. on that. Christians are constantly going near and far for disaster relief aid and house/school building and what not with no nefarious intentions or personal gain. Quite the opposite of “predatory attitudes and behavior”, and “dehumanizing others” or “purging people from society”.

            A quick search pulls up tons of results like joycemeyer dot org
            Not to mention thousand of independent churches that send people out to help others. Makes sense since It’s right in line with the teachings in the Bible.

            Of course you will have a few bad apples hear and there. You’ll find them everywhere but they eventually weed themselves out of the picture.

        • Doom

          wew lad, get a load of this mad guy.

  • YZAS

    I respectively disagree with some of the premises aforementioned, specifically that 7.62×39 “tend(s) to produce wounds that are little more severe than those produced by pistol bullets”. I am also not sure I am totally sold on 12″ of penetration from a rifle, regardless of the fragmentation. I also believe that the penetration capabilities of a good 7.62×39 such as GT 124 is an unmentioned factor in this assessment above, specifically in defeating light cover. Personally for me, 7.62×39 is much just that – it’s ability to better defeat light cover, such as car doors, windshields, walls, etc. I believe the terminal performance of such rounds is also quite capable, very adequate and very proven in that regard. If I wanted AR performance from a round – such as is being referenced above with 8M3 – for me, I would just go with my AR (and get all of the performance, accuracy, ergos and weight advantage that comes with AR). Or if I wanted AR performance from an AK platform (for AK’s inherent reliability, simplicity, low maintenance, etc), I would go with an AK 74. All commentary is stated with the utmost respect and understanding that this is my opinion only and I am not an expert. Thank you sir.

    • Chop Block

      Well, I’m no expert, either. Just relaying what actual experts have told me. I spoke with Dr. Roberts and advised that 7.62x39mm bullets that do not readily yaw (such as Norinco steel core) tend to produce wounds similar to .38 spl RNL. The 12″ standard is the result of examining literally thousands of OIS incidents.

      • QED

        12″ in soft tissue is the minimum penetration standard; in no way is it implied that it will be sufficient in great majority of shootings, particularly with a handgun (that’s why FBI stated that “up to 18 penetration is better”).

      • Quest

        Youre correct, ive seen footage of an Syrian extremist got shot with 7.62×39, it icepicked trough the arm (even tough its ofcourse thin), he continued walking beeing happy, just putting a bandage on there.

        And a US (Army or Marine) in Afghanistan getting shot at 1,5meter distance (taliban hiding in a hole) with an 7.62×39 AKM.
        Clean icepick trough the shoulder area, still on foot, not passing out, but then layed down for bandaging, verry fast wound healing and recovery.
        His buddy turned around and put a 5.56×45 in the taliban who was completly done instantly.

      • QED

        No, the accepted 12 inch minimum penetration requirement (in soft-tissue) came about as an ESTIMATE based on depth of vital structures in the human torso — NOT on an analysis of data from actual shootings. Obviously if a larger than average individual and/or arm (soft tissue never mind the humerus) and a rib are involved 12″ penetration in soft-tissue — let alone even standard gel, not to mention some less viscous than standard gel that is often tacitly “acceptable” to a certain “expert”– will be insufficient. Yeah, I know that a certain “expert” deems any round that penetrates ANYWHERE between 12″ and 18″ in his gel as “ideal” penetration in the “street.” Perhaps if one has the unrealistic luxury of firing as many shots as it takes to ultimately “stop the threat,” otherwise, no.

        • Chop Block

          You a correct on all points except the bit where you think the FBI didn’t examine thousands of shootings to arrive at the standard. The FBI did, indeed study thousands of shootings and independent experts have confirmed the strong correlation between penetration results in real people and properly prepared and calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin.

          • QED

            Actually and factually, no. The 12″ minimum penetration standard was established, as stated previously, by estimates based on depth of vital structures in the torso — as suggested by Fackler and other ballistics/medical experts (not Roberts) in FBI workshops following the Miami area ’86 shootout and failure of 9mm Silvertip to penetrate adequately. This was noted by Duncan MacPherson in his ’94 “Bullet Penetration” book — which Fackler suggested he write to provide a fairly rigorous analytical/experimental basis for bullet penetration and wounding model. However, It is true that, ON AVERAGE, there is a reasonably good correlation between soft-tissue penetration and penetration in STANDARD 10% ORDNANCE GEL (not less viscous gel). Nevertheless, at times there are differences in penetration between body “soft tissues” and standard 10% ordnance gel that can amount to several inches — even when no bones are involved. There are several very good reasons why penetration in soft tissues can, at times, vary significantly from penetration in 10% ordnance gel. When one’s life is at stake, it is obviously imprudent to depend on just “average” results!

          • QED

            Actually your assertion that “the FBI did, indeed study thousands of shootings” and that this, after that ’86 Miami area shooting, led to adopting 12-18″ penetration standard is simply baseless. From a book written by Urey Patrick and John Hall (2010 edition), who had been prior to and for quite a few years after ’86 shooting in charge of FBI’s firearms program including, of course, when 12-18″ FBI standard was adopted:” There is no valid, scientific analysis of actual shooting results in existence, or being pursued, to date.” The 12″ minimum penetration standard was, as MacPherson (a rocket scientist and a real ballistics expert) states in his book, as was previously mentioned, 12″ was based on estimate of penetration required to reach vital organs in the torso — in no way implying that it would be sufficient even if ONLY soft tissues are involved.

    • Stephen Paraski

      What you said^^^^^^. In total agreement.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      5.56 penetrates windows and car doors just fine, and there are plenty of demonstrations of such, both real world and lab. Car doors are not “cover,” they are “concealment.” Engine blocks are cover.

      As others note, 12″ is the modern, scientific standard for penetration, based on millions of incident studies.

      5.45 has about 2/3 the power of 5.56 and a different flight profile. It is not comparable.

      7.62X39 has been proven for 60 years to be less effective in standard loads.

      • QED

        Not quite. 12″ penetration in soft tissue (not 10% ordnance gel, let alone some non-standard ordnance gel) is the minimum penetration standard — not optimum or sufficient penetration in many real situations. That’s why, the FBI concludes that penetration “up to 18″ is better” — even though the bullet would have a smaller frontal area to be able to penetrate17 or 18″ v. 12″. Your 5.56 leaves a lot to be desired, terminally speaking, on non-frontal shots where substantially more than 12″ penetration in 10% ordnance gel equivalent may be required. 5.56 for serious self-defense where only one shot needs to count — no thanks.

        • MichaelZWilliamson

          Still more than any handgun except a few magnums.

      • 5.45 and 5.56 are really not that different, Mike:

        http://i.imgur.com/VlU4Gsc.png

        http://i.imgur.com/6mPfKVj.png

        • MichaelZWilliamson

          5.45mm
          3.43 g (53 gr) 7N6 FMJ mild steel core 880 m/s (2,900 ft/s) 1,328 J (979 ft·lbf)

          5,56mm:
          4 g (62 gr) SS109 FMJBT 940 m/s (3,100 ft/s) 1,767 J (1,303 ft·lbf)

          Energy matters, as much as trajectory. 1328 ft lbs > 979 ft lbs. 5.45mm is not much over a .30 Carbine.

          I see the problem. You’re firing a rifle bullet from an SBR. I don’t use an SBR.

    • Here is what Dr. Martin Fackler had to say about the steel-cored M43 7.62×39 load:

      “Soviet 7.62x39mm – The Soviet AK-47 Kalashnikov fires a full-metal-jacketed, boat-tail bullet that has a copper-plated steel jacket, a large steel core, and some lead between the two (Fig. 1). In tissue, this bullet typically travesl for about 26cm point-forward before beginning significant yaw. This author observed, on many occasions, the damage pattern shown in Fig 2 while treating battle casualties in Da Nang, Vietnam (1968). The typical path through the abdomen caused minimal disruption; holes in organs were similar to those caused by a non-hollow-point handgun bullet. The average uncomplicated thigh wound was about what one would expect from a low-powered handgun: a small, punctate entrance and exit wound with minimal intervening muscle disruption.”

      He does say that lead-cored M67 FMJ performs quite a bit better, but I think the most common ammunition “out in the world” is still of the steel-cored variety.

  • Mike Lashewitz

    Heck! I got a couple thousand of these and did not know it! Yaaaayyy!!!

    Guess I need to shelve these and get more.

  • Fox Hunter

    Moral of the story, stick with 5.45×39 AKs.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      With 2/3 the ballistics of 5.56mm?

      • eastern orthodox moose

        no with 4/3 with 7n10 and 3/3 with 7n6, commercial is shi t though.

      • You keep repeating that, and it’ll keep not being true, Mike. 🙂

  • Fox Hunter

    Nothing wrong with a jenner joke, stop whining like a liberal.

    • DonDrapersAcidTrip

      Get a soul scumbag

  • gerald brennan

    It seems like this round is better at wounding than killing.
    Doesn’t that make it a better “battle” round?

    • Bob

      NO… and he11 NO.
      The theory of a wounded soldier works great when you are in an air conditioned office in the pentagon!
      The people we are fighting around the world today are NOT like us!!
      They will not send the mythical 4 to 7 guys to take care of their wounded comrad!!
      They are ALL fighting to save their own bacon, and the guy you just wounded is highly Pi$$ed and motivated to try and kill you and take you with him!!
      I’ve seen the elephant.
      I’ve also seen a lot of my combat brothers KILLED by the “lowly 7.62 x 39 FMJ” round coming out of an AK-47.

      • gerald brennan

        Thanks, Bob. That was illuminating.

      • That’s absolutely correct. The whole theory about wounded soldiers isn’t even relevant to our own troops so much anymore. There is an emotional component, of course, but according to STP-21-1-SMCT (CTT Skill Level 1), the soldier is directed to continue the fight and NOT render buddy aid until such time as the immediate threat is resolved.

      • MichaelZWilliamson

        Not even the Pentagon made that claim. It’s a myth that started somewhere, propagated and won’t die.

        • Chop Block

          This. Current training is for the soldier to continue fighting, rather than render buddy aid.

    • This round is much better at causing significant tissue disruption. That is, more severe wounding, which is more likely to result in death.

  • QED

    I don’t know Roberts personally and thus neither like or dislike him. However, my point was that he is not in the same league as Fackler; Roberts’ statements and tests are too often misleading, erroneous and hardly scientific. This is, for example, evident even in his “summary” of Wolberg’s paper (the paper itself is useful) that you quoted here– where he blatantly and repeatedly quantitatively misstates Wolberg’s findings. In addition, his gel tests are next to useless since — unlike you — Roberts often does not provide gel calibration information and within his “acceptable” gel calibration range penetration could vary by as much as 2 inches (for example 13″ in Roberts’ gel could actually be about 11″ in standard ordnance gel). Indeed, some of his gel tests done at different times with same type of rounds, at similar velocities, vary just about as much as if he performed those tests in Clear Ballistics gel. Actually, for this reason your gel tests certainly are more “scientific” than Roberts’ gel tests.

  • Jimbob

    This stuff is great ammo, only sgammo has it, it is plenty accurate, after a couple hundred rounds had zero failures, and it actualy loaded a little hot, the ammo is made by uly with the same machinery the original was made with, the only difference is that uly doesnt use lacquer on the cases anymore

  • valorius

    Roberts just strikes me (and many others) as very closed minded and condescending.

    He once told me i was going to, quote “get people killed” because i pointed out that all major brands of .357 magnum 125gr SJHP had spectacular street performance despite mediocre gel testing results.

    He also slammed the 5.7mm as useless before being forced to admit he’d never once tested any type of 5.7mm ammo in gel. While some 5.7mm is marginal, there are a few loadings that exhibit extremely impressive performance in gel, getting over 12″ penetration, and violently shedding and fragmenting their jacket, similar to what 5.56mm ammo does. Without ever having tested this type of ammo, he labeled the caliber as useless.

    • Well, I’ll agree that he has an abrupt attitude about him. I have spoken with him on the phone from time to time and I can see how he can rub people the wrong way, but he really is quite knowledgeable.

  • QED

    Yeah, on unobstructed frontal shots this 8M3 should be quite effective; otherwise not so much.

    • Chop Block

      What makes you say that?

  • MichaelZWilliamson

    I always snicker at the amusing claim and definition of “full power” cartridges, which seems to be based on some American infantry officer’s personal and unscientific bias 80 years ago.

    .308 is most certainly not the “full power” one can get from a rifle. Nor is it necessary in most engagements, and at this point, every relevant military on the planet concurs.

    • QED

      .308 is as “full power” as one needs for very effective and devastating defense against bipods — nothing more powerful is needed and in most cases, even desired. The same cannot be said of some other rifle calibers.

      • Chop Block

        I’ve never heard of a bipod attacking someone.

    • Chop Block

      It’s nothing more than useful shorthand for “.30-06, .303, 7.62x54mm, 7.62x51mm, 7.92x57mm, and other, similar military rifle cartridges.”

      Also, I’m happy to see you here. I’d love to hear what you think of this article in general. You can email me at choppingblocktests@gmail.com, if you like.

  • jcitizen

    My friends were always looking for a cheap way to hunt prairie dogs – which are a quite tough animal. The SKS was the only semi-auto accurate enough to hunt the dogs at ranges from point blank to 100 meters. The only problem was, the FMJ would just go right though them, and the dog would act as though it was bit by a bug, they’d just scratch themselves looking for a tick I suppose. I’m sure they probably expired but it was very unsatisfying and non sportsmen like to see them nonchalantly puttering around the hole and then drop underground as if nothing happened. Binoculars verified a direct hit each time, it wasn’t like we were missing them.

    I decided to never do that again without hollow points. The Wolf ammo we came up with looked like your photos, but I can’t vouch for the exact type. However, we did finally get the performance we needed in knocking them down. Now at least the little buggers don’t have to suffer unnecessarily. I’m just glad I have a lot of cheap 5.56 NATO surplus ammo kept back from years ago, so I can afford to use that instead – but my friends don’t really have that option.

  • Secundius

    There is a WWI Trick, but it probably Won’t Work on a “AK” or “AR” Feed Mechanism because of the use of “Spitzer-Point” Bullets. “Spall” the Rounds by Reversing the Bullet in the Propellant Cartridge. With the “Boat-Tail” of the Bullet facing the Direction of Travel…

  • Cm

    Andrew- As a LGBTQ shooter I find your comment about Caitlyn Jenner in bad taste and uncalled for. Also, a bad example of gun journalism. I remembered when TFB was about guns and not politics. and before someone says it’s not, it is political.

    • Chop Block

      It’s not political. It’s just a joke. Until you make it political, that is. I’m curious about what your point is, though. Is it that you wanted people to not say things that hurt your feewings? Is it that you want to be sure everybody knows how sensitive you are? What would you like to get from this discussion?

      • Cm

        how about “Russian ammo makers seem to change components more often than Melania Trump changed her outfits during the inauguration”? just about as funny and pertinent.

      • QED

        The emotional/mental turmoil over considerable period of time — resulting in a man to take action to “become” a woman is anything but a laughing matter for anyone with any empathy toward another flawed human being.

    • Chop Block

      If someone made a joke about fat people in an article and I got all weepy about it, I would sound just as pathetic.

      • Cm

        i wasn’t “weepy”. would you liked to be mocked for what you are and are proud of and still facing social and political pressure? that exactly how i feel like as a gun owner. prideful and having an inherent need to be able to protect myself, others and harvest food. to mock anyone of who they are is the signature of a weak mind and not truly understanding of the rights naturally imbued as set forth in the Constitution.

        as far as i am concerned this thread is closed.

  • Psychofan Vev game’a

    I quite cannot understand this. AK is advertised as a powerfull rifle, and 7.62×39 more powerfull then 5.45. Then again, it is said that is doesn’t deal sewere damage, and 5×45 (even 5.56 !) does better at this terms. I’m really confused, could someone explain that to me?

    • sometrend

      It is a bullet performance issue. 7.62X39 just doesn`t have the velocity to rapidly promote bullet instability in tissue The 5.45 with the military 7n6 has great wounding potential because it has velocity, and the projectile is specifically designed to yaw and fragment in tissue at combat ranges. The M193 round in 5.56 is also a good performer in tissue as long as the velocity is kept above 2200 fps. where it will yaw and, quite often, fragment. M855 in 5.56 is an attempt to improve light armor penetration and still retain the wounding capability of M855. I think M855 sucks as I find it to be less accurate than 193 but then, I`m not shooting alot of people wearing armor either. If you loaded the 7.62X39 with a good, reliable expanding bullet, say federals Fusion load, now this round will far outpace either the 5.45 or the 5.56 in tissue. Infact, with this load, the 7.62 now becomes a solid choice for deer size game at moderate range.

      • Chop Block

        This is correct, except that 7N6 does not fragment. Soft points also do well in 7.62x39mm.

  • eastern orthodox moose

    7.62x39mm is fine iv’e seen hogs drop with russian sp rounds all the time, fmj is fine as long as it hits something vital, the same people that say 7.62 sucks praise .300blk which is a weaker 7.62 boggles my mine, however 5.45 or 6.5 Grendel are probably the best “combat” rounds on earth

    • Chop Block

      Nobody said that 7.62x39mm sucks. It does have some marked limitations. A man I respect greatly told me that the wounds he observed from late yawing 7.62x39mm FMJ were similar to wounds he has seen from .38 spl RNL. That will also kill stuff dead if it pokes holes in your hydraulic system.

  • Doom

    lol. I love it when turds compare anything christians do to muslims feats of evil, always a good laugh, and im not even christian. Muslims are simply inspired with their killing and maiming. Impressive really. And all for their pedo prophet.

    • DonDrapersAcidTrip

      Yeah I’ll bet real life works just like your cartoon understanding of it and is in no way more complex or nuanced. You’re like a kid playing an imaginary game with no self-awareness whatsoever “the rules are I’m always good and anything anyone does to me is bad” lmfao. what it’s like being an adult no more mentally developed than a kindergartener

      • Doom

        An imaginary game except there are people marching across the middle east and North Africa killing in a magical medley of ways, for what? They aren’t killing foreigners, they are killing each other, which is fine with me, but it shows what kind of psychos they are.

        And now those same people are flooding Europe and the US, but especially Europe, and causing massive spikes in crimes like rape and other forms of assault. but no, they aren’t the bad guys are they, they are the good guys! Please show me one European or European American Christian Sect that is going around brutally murdering thousands and thousands of people per year in the name of christ, ill wait.

        • DonDrapersAcidTrip

          Yeah the US only ever uses good violence, not bad violence

          I don’t know why you responded to me in the first place or what this has to do with anything anyone was talking about other than you love to hear yourself rant about what savages brown people are

          “a magical medley of ways” yeah you’re working with a full set lmao.

          • Doom

            I didnt know religions came with a requirement with race. Chechen Muslims are plenty violent and backwards too. I just mentioned European Christians because there are African christians that enjoying butchering the hell out of each other but that’s usually over tribal crap instead of religious crap.

            I never said the US was innocent of anything, I was correcting your retarded comparison of Islam to Christianity in acts of evil. No country for the most part is innocent. Maybe Switzerland? People who dont stick their fingers in everyone else,s eye?

            I like how you continuously use straw men and ad hominem attacks because your arguments are trash. Christianity is Neutral to a net positive for humanity, Islam is a huge negative.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            I was talking about idiot rednecks who fantasize about purging trans or gay people from society you complete utter moron

            “Christianity is Neutral to a net positive for humanity” lmfao how far back does your history books go last week

          • Doom

            Fantasizing doesn’t hurt a living soul dingleberry. Or can you not differentiate between cletus wishing he could beat a tranny up and mohammad throwing a gay man off the roof?

            Christianity has caused a lot of problems in the past, but it has also brought people together. in its modern form it is a very giving and charitable religion for better or worse.

            Islam has never done anything for people.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            “Christianity has caused a lot of problems in the past, but it has also brought people together. in its modern form it is a very giving and charitable religion for better or worse.”

            lmfao you literally have absolutely zero self-awareness

        • Secundius

          “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus gui sunt eius” by Arnoldus Amaricus in 22 July 1209…

          • Doom

            ayyy, 808 years ago, not bad. how about. 8 hours ago? ISIS, boom.

    • QED

      Equating Christianity and Islam is ultimate stupidity, ignorance, or disingenuousness. The message of J.C. couldn’t be more different than that of that notorious, savage, and brutal conquistador Mohamed who is the founder of Islam and who — to this day– inspires other savages to follow his example and thus please Allah.

  • QED

    What is your point, if any? Did J.C. (founder of Christianity/God) instruct His followers to kill others in His name — of course not, quite the opposite. Did Mohamed (brutal and savage conquistador and founder of Islam/prophet of Allah) instruct his followers to kill others in the name of Allah — of course he did, Anyone could, of course, form a sect and call it “Christian” — it is really Christian IF and ONLY IF the belief system is in accord with the teachings of J.C. — obviously. Got it?

    • Secundius

      The City of Beziers was “Sacked” Killing ALL. Almost All Of them “RC’s” just to get ~222 J e w s…

      • QED

        Where in the New Testament (basis of Christianity) is the instruction to murder others? However, you can find orders to murder others in the Quran (Mohamed’s revelation for Moslems from Allah). I guess you just don’t get it; that’s OK, obviously not everything is suitable for everyone to comprehend.

        • Secundius

          I don’t Recall ANY Christianity Crusades “Actually” Saving Anyone from DEATH. Not to mention “Inquisitions”…

          • QED

            Evidently, for some personal reason you insist on being irrelevant and pointless… Show me, in the New Testament, where those “inquisitions,” etc. are the teaching of J.C. Christianity is spelled out in the New Testament — not in the acts of some individuals/groups/organizations pretending to be Christians. What’s next on your agenda, mentioning pedophile Catholic priests to “show” that that’s what Christianity is about? You’re very silly and do not rise close to the level of communication required for a meaningful, relevant discussion. Carry on!

          • Secundius

            As with the “Noble Quran” and the “Holy Bible”, depends on WHO is Doing the Interpreting…

          • QED

            I can read, comprehend and thus interpret for myself; I suggest you learn to read and perhaps comprehend and interpret for yourself as well — instead of depending on others to interpret whatever for you! Lots of luck!

  • I am so butthurt that they didn’t bring this back with a lacquered case.

    • Like, don’t get me wrong. Super excited that 8M3 is back – that round really is a shot in the arm to 7.62×39 – but man. Lacquer is awesome. Such mixed feelings!

      • Chop Block

        Maybe we can talk SG Ammo into asking Tula to make it with a lacquered case.