Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Awhile back, someone posted an article on defensive ammo written by some guy who relied on info from Ayoob, Marshall, and Sanow. http://www.chuckhawks.com/ammo_by_anonymous.htm This article recommended using anything but ball as a defensive round, even in rifles. In short, it says that:

Jacketed hollow-points will stop and attacker better than ball because ball will go through the person - with HP ammo, the knock-down power is greater because the attacker absorbs all the kinetic energy from a JHP round. The article also says soft-points are okay.

There's a risk of over-penetration with ball ammo.

That hollow-point and ball ammo are priced similarly, so you may as well get the JHP ammo. Of course, the article was written two years ago, and from what I can see, ball is way cheaper than JHP or SP ammo.

With that in mind is ball/FMJ good for nothing else other than the range? I would think that for a longer-range stand-off (TSHTF) round, ball would be okay, and perhaps preferable if attackers are wearing armor or hiding behind solid barriers.

I'm just trying to justify the extra expense of JHP rounds over FMJ/ball for prepping. Thoughts?

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

JHP will cause more damage to a human, whatever the distance. But ball has the advantage of being able to swiss cheese things like cars, and to go through walls you WANT to go through.

It seems to me that if you're worried about price, just practice at the range with ball but keep your mags at home full of JHP! I'm with you on keeping costs down, so that is my goal.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

You can't use HPs during war, unless you win.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

theboxotruth.com~~~~~~these are the penetration guys, there is a lot to learn there

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Ball works just fine it's just that other types of bullets perform better today. The HP is by far the best bullet to use on soft skinned animals however.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Military ball, or full metal jacketed bullets, are designed to meet Geneva Convention accords. Better to wound the opposing soldier to create more demand for services and remove him from the field, etc.

Hollowpointed bullets are not the solution. Often they fail to open at low velocities common in handguns or are very frangible so do not stick together. A flat point heavy slug is more reliable for anchoring game or defense and opens a better wound channel. In auto pistols, a flat-point jacketed bullet is much more effective than a round "ball" bullet.

Military ball is not the equal of gilding metal jacketed match bullets. If you want accuracy, you want a uniform jacket, one that is thick and therefore a toughly constructed bullet, but one that "takes" the rifling fully and effectively. Hollowpoint match bullets are not "explosive". They use a hp to optimize the weight balance for maximum ballistic coefficiency. A bullet with max weight in the center of its mass will perform better in flight. A Boat Tail Hollowpoint or A-Max type is the most efficient for this.

Flat points work well in rifles, for game getting at close range. Flat points optimize the energy transmission of the pistol at all ranges.

Ball ammo will kill game, just not as effectively; at least that is the theory. It is purposefully designed not to kill humans, although it does that well enough if a vital organ or bone is broken. The heavier the bullet, and the squarer the bullet design, the greater the wound area and the less likely the wound to close. Round nose jacketed pistol bullets deflect in there terminal trajectory (bullet path), FMJ rifle bullets zip right through principally designed to wound.

A heavy semi-wadcutter design for revolver or expanding bullet for rifle is best for game-getting.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Are you saying that 5.56mm ball will only kill someone if hit in a vital organ? You're wrong. Ball ammo is also NOT designed to wound. It's designed to tumble thus making a significant exit wound which kills.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Any rifle bullet that does not fragment, flatten, expand or otherwise disrupt will tend to flip over or "tumble" in soft tissue...because the base is heavier than the nose.

And I believe it was the Hague Conventions of 1899 that first sought to forbid HP bullets...the U.S. never officially signed on although they went along tacitly with the agreements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_C...99_and_1907%29

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/dec99-03.htm

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Use ball ammo for anti bullet proof vest shooting.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Sorry. Bullets aren't designed to tumble. They are designed to fly true and spin to stabilize. Only when they strike a bone or drop below sonic speed do they become unstable. In target shooting, this effect is called key-holing.

A light bullet will have some explosive effect, not so a heavy bullet unless at phenomenal velocity.

Terminal ballistics is an interesting study. The Army studied wound channels in live/dead animals in the 50s. Google Thompson-LaGarde Studies or terminal ballistics for more info.


How can a bullet moving 3000 fps and spinning over 8,000rpm tumble? It can't unless something alters its inertia/flight path.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

techguy,

I agree with M.M. that is called key-holing and your bullets should not do that. This sometimes indicates a problem with the crown on your barrel. Tumbling inside whatever is shot = ok
Tumbling in flight = bad news

Mike

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

In cold weather areas, where HEAVY jackets are used, HP does NOT work nearly as well. It has been shown over and over again, particularly if the jacket is made of a 'soft' material (wool or cotton), that the hollow part of the bullet is just 'filled' with material that keeps it from expanding.

SO, if you live in an area of the country where people wear heavy jackets against the cold, consider ball. BECAUSE HP DOES THE EXACT SAME THING.

This has been tested many times and proven every time.

If you live down south where warm is the way of life (or in SoCal), then by all means, step up to the HP plate.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Thanks for all the input - I appreciate the advice.

Yeah, I've heard that, too. A long time ago, a friend of mine recommended loading my pistol mags with every other round HP, and every other round ball, just for that reason. I still do that today.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Keyholing is because the bullet is not being stabilized properly in the barrel...

The fix can be as simple as re-crowning the barrel (more difficult if chrome-lined) or simply changing ammo. Too heavy a bullet weight in a slower rate of twist can also cause keyholing. Some U.S. manufactured ammo is loaded with .308-.310 bullets to shoot in U.S. chambered rifles. These won't always stabilize well in a .311-.314 bored AK (alot of variation can occur)...

A more serious problem would be an out-of-spec barrel/chamber...which would necessitate a new barrel.

I would be curious to know what ammo and rifle combo gives you keyholing @120 yards...?

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

If you had bothered to read the post you will see that it was stated that when hitting SOFT TISSUE the bullet begins to tumble. :sarc:

What's Wrong With Ball?
 

.223 bullet at 3200 fps from a 1 in 7" twist barrel turns:
3200x60x (12/7) = 329,000 RPM that is 329,000 revolutions per minute, very FAST and very STABLE in flight.
.308 bullet at 2700 FPS from a one in 11" twist spins 2700x60x(12/11)=
176,000 rpm. that is (just) sufficient to stabilize 190 grain matchkings.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Thanks Mountainman:wink:

I get tired of typing.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

I had an SLR-95 that would not group consistently at 100 yards..

I found it would shift the point of impact 6 inches left or right at will, so that I had two distinct groups, fired consecutively, with the same Wolf ammo. Very weird. At the time I thought I might have a bent barrel or crooked muzzle brake and I ended up getting rid of it.

In retrospect, I should have had a gunsmith check the headspace and slug the barrel for me. I suspect it may have had a bad barrel, too.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Mtn Man,

Ignorance and pride is a dangerous combination.

Do you realize that "soft tissue" does not in any way cause a bullet to "tumble"? Do you even know what "tumbling" is? A bullet travelling over 1000fps will penetrate soft tissue, like ballistic gelatin test medium, and either pass through or remain. If nothing impedes its forward momentum like bone or a tree limb the bullet is spinning and will remain stable.

I am reminded of Dan Ackroyd's bit on the SNL news with Jane Curtin. Dan would preface his rebuttal with, "Jane, you ignorant slut". I don't know anything about you personally but wow, you like to really advertise your Ignorance Quotient when it comes to firearms.

Always entertaining. Thanks for all the chuckles.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Plenty, ESPECIALLY if you DON'T have ENOUGH of it!

In a few years, we will all have plenty of first hand experience to have a reasonable discussion of the subject, that is if there is anyone who will have the stomach to bring it up!

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Yet another interesting firearms, ballistics thread. And as usual, with a few side shows, since we're all experts and sometimes like to butt heads.

But from my memory, which from time to time, may have some flaws or imperfections. The intent of 'military ball ammo' was for no other reason but to penetrate the steel bucket on the enemy's head.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to get 'ahead' of myself.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Never heard that one before. I'm quite certain that a soft point, HPBT, RN or any other bullet design fired from a .30-06 at 2800 fps will penetrate any steel bucket, any day of the week out to 1000 meters easily.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

AK's are notoriously inaccurate. There was just a show on the history channel comparing the AR and the AK. At 200 yards, the AK wasn't on paper with 5 shots. The AR had 5 shots in the kill zone. All done with ball ammo.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

The SLR95 was a lemon...I have 4 others all capable of 4 MOA at 100 and that will easily spank the 10 inch range gong (kill zone) at 200 yards all day long with iron sights.

My AK-74 will shoot to 2 MOA @100 yards and break clay pidgeons at 200.

Watch the video again...he jerks the trigger and the rifle was not even sighted in properly...It was a very biased comparison..:thumpdown

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

M855 green tip ammo was designed to meet military requirements to penetrate both sides of a steel helmet at 400 m.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Always a hoot to see the Commie-junk lovers brag about 4moa at 100yds.
Junk. No good but for shooting some poor peasant in the back of the head as he/she kneels in front of the ditch that will be their grave.

That is about all the power that needs come from the barrel of a gun, according to chairman mao.

Still laughing about the "basic bug out load" of 40lbs one "member" here said he planned to carry. AK, Ammo, and BP Vest. 40lbs of useless crap, but what a great fantasy.

Nothing wrong with mil-spec ammunition. It is what it is. Lotsa game been killed with it. Lots of humans.

If you are buying .223/5.56mm better to buy 62gr ball or heavier.

The helmet penetration thing was how the Army decided they could live with the 5.56mm. Had to penetrate a helmet at 600yds. The fact that an AR can actually hit one at that distance is always lost on the AK shooters who figure to come out of the mud-sty and engage their opponents. Mud-Men into the breach!

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

I have to admit I have not read the entire thread but ammo-oracle.com gives a excellent background of many of these rounds and what each one does in different scenarios.

5.56 55 grain mil spec fragments up to 2700 fps and makes a wound channel similar to .308. Of course after about 200 yards its going to slow to achieve this.

mdp

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

We talking pistol or rifle? In any pistol I'd want JHP. Rifles not so much.

I can't believe no one brought up function. Ball is more uniform, and less likely to jam an autoloader. Of course, many of the new HPs and such are pretty good, but that poylmer tip just isn't as tough as a FMJ.

The FMJ gives something up on terminal ballistics, but the price difference is(or at least was) crazy. When I stocked up, I could buy fmj 3:1 over HP. I'll take the 3:1 any day. With the rise of cost in some calibers, the point might be mute now.

Either way, I decided on FMJ and never looked back. Funny, the FMJ seemed to work for everyone in every war for the last 100+ years.

ONe other thing...the spire point was SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to cause a bullet to tumble upon impact. The US .30 Cal was originally a 220(?) grain round nose that bored straight through whatever it hit. The Armory System came up with the spire point because it distributes the weight to the rear of the projectile, causing it to swap ends when it hits stuff. They also found that it helped flight ballistics, but the drive was for better terminal ballistics.

BTW, SkyVike, I love you, and hate to buck you, but a SP/JHP/etc out of any rifle (even the lowly 5.56) will blow straight through any mag or tobacco tin, even at distance.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

In a rifle, I normally use what I would use if I was deer hunting. The one exception is 5.56mm/.223. I _used_ to use expanding bullets in that caliber for self-defense. Then I read through the whole ammo oracle piece. Then I went out and shot a deer to see for myself. Now my 5.56mm rifles are loaded with mil-spec M193. Not just any generic 55 grain FMJ, true NATO M193. (Should have that little circle with a plus sign on the base.)

M193 damages animals to a degree that far outweighs what you would expect. Longer barrels being better. 14.5" not so good. 16" better. 20" great.

Read it for yourself and look at the photos. Makes perfect sense to me!

http://www.ammo-oracle.com/

And I never seriously use FMJ in a handgun. Just for practice.

Gregg

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

I am curious...have you or anyone else ever had good results with either the Speer 70 SP or the Hornady 75 BTHP on deer?

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

At what range did you take the deer? Where did the bullet stike (did it hit bone)? What rate is the bbl? I've read that M193 won't frag/tumble reliably past about 130-150 yards. It does a lot better with improper twist rate, as the bullet isn't stabilized and will tumble more readily.

A lot of terminal ballistics is up to chance. I've had 7.62MM FMJ hit a rib and do massive damage. Likewise, I've had 308 polymer tips blast right through pigs with minimal expansion/wound cavity, even at close range/high velocity.

BTW, more to the point on the M193, not all ball is equal. IE the Russian 5.45 and German DAG 7.62MM, both of whom "just happen to" be made in a way that promotes fragmenting in soft targets.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

shot placement is paramount.............you can have all the whizbang super bullets you want, if it doesn't hit the target, it is useless. hunting deer on shuyak island alaska, had no problem using chinese ak with ball ammo. running lung shot, deer traveled 50 yards, followed blood trail, head shot did the rest. liked having 30 round cap mag just in case a bear wanted in on the meat. the main reason i got that deer was practice with the weapon, the ball ammo was affordable to practice with.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

If your AK is keyholing at 120 yards...you need to get a new AK......I don't care what ammo you are using......
And there is nothing wrong with BALL...period. Military ball ammo has an hourglass shaped penetrator that will indeed cause the round to tumble on contact with ANYTHING....a leaf, twig...or your throat...and that is a fact.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

You should try American Shooting centers off Highway 6 near Addicks Dam. I saw a brother and his old lady fully decked out in Fubu take their folding stock AK and start shooting away, no one even turned a head.

Avoid Ma Baileys near Almeda road. She's a crotchety old lady that rides around on an electric scooter accusing everyone who shoots there that you're blowing holes in her elevation stop.

And what Mntman said!

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

LOL, you've been aquanted with Mrs. Bailey, I see!!

How about her son?:thumpdown

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Mtn Girl,
(Is your IBS acting up some, hon?)

You cast aspersions pretty easily.
I in no way voiced any comment about what I suspect to be your white-trash, in-bred origins; but rest at ease sir, I have never "run from the law".

Pretty damn lily-livered to insult someone in the open you are ignoring. But, hey! I guess you prove again you are too dumb to even understand what "ignore" means. I think you are the living definition of "ignoramus".

No hard feelings.
Likely, you are the epitome of civic pride and President of your communities Rotary this year. Or maybe not. Just remember, your mother loves you even if others don't. That must be some consolation.

I am not so much of a wus that I make bitchy little girl comments about who's on my ignore list. Fact is, I don't have one. Not being an ignoramus, I don't need a computer to ignore anything for me.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

You know WHY I almost never get in these gun threads ? Because almost invariably, the opinions of participants degrade into a name calling, pissing contest....and for the life of me, I can't understand why.

Most shooters have different real life experiences, studies of ballistic qualities can come from lots of sources, and so on.....WHY THE HECK CAN'T WE BE GENTLEMEN IN PRESENTING AN ARGUMENT ????

MM AND MTman.....you BOTH need to back off in how you present your side...the silly assed insults do absolutely NOTHING to futher your side of an argument or your personal reputations.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Read a long detailed article in the US Army's inhouse "Ordenance" magazine in 1964 how they were makeing the original M16s with insufficient barrel twist to make sure that the ball bullets used started tumbleing and breaking apart if they hit anything!!! I think they were 1 in 12. So you are wrong MM. It's just not something that they wanted the public to know about and not something you will read in the normal gun rags.

The Russkies went about it in another way, to get their bullets tumbleing. Their bullets for the AK were empty or had a wood filler under the spire point, so that the metal would flap over to the side on impact causeing violent tumbleing.

If you really want and need straight deep penetration, you go with round nosed solids at medium velocitys like elephant hunters did, or you go with fast twists[1 in 7]at medium velocitys with long bullets like the Swedes did with their famous 6.5x55 mausers. If these people could figure it out back in the 1800s, why can't you guys today?

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Incorrect. That was part of the justification for the switch to 5.56. At the time of the Geneva Convention no one was using hollowpoints, but a few had experimented with explosive small-arm projectiles, and of course there was thei infamous British Dum-Dum-- a soft lead bullet with an "x" cut in the nose to cause expansion. The idea of outlawing these round was that the grievous wounds they caused were too inhumane and terrible (because the quaint notion of honor in war still abounded), as was poison gas.

Later, the Soviets put an air space in the nose of the round, but it was entirely enclosed and therefore was not a violation of the accords.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Uncle Lad

Did the Air Space cause expansion like Mushrooming or Fragmentation?

E-A

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Neither. The Russian 5.45x39 with the hollow cavity was designed to tumble on impact with soft tissue...

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

E-A The bent over flap of metal at the tip would act like a rudder on a boat jammed to the side

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

I'm on enough gun forums to use the energy to get involved in technicalites or arguments regarding ball vs. HP.

But I'll say this.......

I own a 5.56 rifle and a 9mm pistol. I don't know anyone who's willing to take are round of 5.56 ball from a 20" or 16" barrel. Same goes for 9mm ball or cast lead bullets. If you get hit with one you will have a serious problem that will be first and foremost in your mind.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

If you immediately blow a grapefruit-sized hole out of a VC, chances are he won't shoot back. If you just puncture his insides, he might just empty an AK mag or two in your direction before kicking the bucket.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Yeah it was really kind of funny actually. My friend and his wife were shooting their brand new mini-14. We were sitting there at the 50 yd range, the ONLY ones there having a good time sighting it in. Then I hear this whine and a few "Hey, hey heys!" coming from behind me. We all took off our protection and turned around. I don't know if it was Ma Bailey or not, but it could have been. Well she told us that we were zapping her elevation stop and that if we continued, we'd have to pay to replace the wood. I never noticed ONE strike or shot that had ever hit it. As far as I know, I don't even remember when she could have ever seen this anyways. We kept shooting and eventually run out of 5.56, then when we went to the pistol range, we heard the familiar whine of her little scooter. She was watching us like a hawk. We even bought ammo at their store. I have never bumped into her son, and I don't think I want to. But I don't like getting accused of doing things I didn't do, so I won't be going back there again. This was about five years ago, so who knows maybe things are different.

Funny.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Her son is a nice enough guy, just not the sharpest knife in the drawer. One of my best friends worked there when we were in HS, and I'm on a first name basis with the family, but I still don't go there. You said something might have changed, and you're right. She's getting grumpier!!

In her/their defence, they were once THE range for HPD. I'm sure they've seen more stupid stuff than you can shake a stick at.

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Well it was probably the fact that my buddy was wearing sandals. I did adopt a dog or two from next door. I always chuckle when I hear gunshots coming from that direction when I work on Southbelt Industrial road. :wink:

Re: Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?
 

Who gives a flip WHAT or WHY Ball Ammo was designed. I believe that the original question was "Rifle Ammo: What's Wrong With Ball?" ANSWER: Nothing at all!