Firearms Talk banner

Incendiary Ammo available?!!

4K views 71 replies 19 participants last post by  Missouribound 
#1 ·
#3 ·
Not a new idea. President Reagan and Brady were shot with devasatator (sp) bullets in 22.
I think I read that these are illegal in some states.

I don't think I would use the 357 in a lever action.
 
#5 ·
I see they also have Chinese steel core 7.62 for a buck a round.



I'm rich! I'm wealthy! I'm independent! I'm financially secure!



Just a word from a guy that has probably set more military firing ranges on fires than all the pyromaniacs put together- like tracer, incendiary starts fires. You are legally and FINANCIALLY responsible for fires you start, including the cost of putting out a forest fire, and the value of timber lost. Have you seen what the hourly rental rate is on a tanker airplane or helicopter?
 
#6 ·
Arson is more likely to get you long-term prison time than murder. It would be hard to argue that the fire you set wasn't intentional. If you used it in a self-defense situation then you would be treated and tried as a monster, regardless of the situation.

That aside, it is illegal to use in my state.
 
#7 ·
It's illegal in a lot of states. Check your laws before buying. Check again before using.
 
#10 · (Edited)
I don't know of any targets I need to set on fire from the inside.
As a submariner? I would have thought all of them! :D:p :pot stirrer:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dallas53
#12 ·
Legendary rounds are a HOOT to SHOOT ! I only shoot them at any of the Big Sandy MG shoots. The staff there has placed hundreds of HEAVY Steel barrels through out the range, some are out beyond 800 yards. Its the best way to know that you really hit the target. They are not cheap and I would never run them the .308 beltfed, but for the M1A it works great. The Main reason you can shoot them there, they have their own Fire department to take care of the fires !
 
#13 ·
Sorry guys, but ammunition like this should be banned.
Anyone using this kind of ammo is going to end up in trouble.
Not to mention, liberals would just love to bust somebody with this kind of stuff.

My advice, leave that kind of stuff alone, unless you really think you need all the attention.

Stuff like this use to be cool MANY years ago, but not anymore...
we already have unwanted targets on all our backs as it is being gun people.
 
#15 ·
I disagree strongly

It's a slippery slope from banning 'certain types' of ammo to banning other things and other types of things

We don't need 'banning' or laws or regs... We need common sense and accountability and penalties for actions. If someone misuses something (Anything)... Hold them accountable and prosecute if neccesary.

As mentioned- there are already limited places to safely use this ammo... But a ban is not something I want our government (local, state or fed) in the business of issuing.

We lose our liberties one 'little ban at a time'
 
#20 ·
I like to collect old military stuff.... Are you saying I shouldnt be able to have these?

I wish it was like the pre-'68 era... It makes me sad when old people tell me about mail order anti-tank rifles and $8 Arisakas from a barrel at the hardware store... :(
Office supplies Wood Cosmetics Font Material property
 
#22 ·
Actually 2a does guarantee citizens any weapon made.

It's just terribly expensive to house a nuke, raptor, Abrams etc. Lol

No ammo should be regulated either.
It's kinda unsettling to see the frequency a gun owner will suggest banning ammo or guns.
actually that's false. the Supreme Court even ruled that the 2nd Amendment had limits.

you can't buy a tank. you can't buy a functioning military aircraft. and you sure as hell can't buy anything with any nuclear material in it.

but that all aside, let me ask you a question. do you believe that the 2nd Amendment shouldn't have limits imposed upon it?
 
#23 ·
Tracer ammo is allowed here in Oregon, but we are told not to use it when the fire danger is high. It's also a good idea not to drive a vehicle across grassy fields which may catch on fire from extremely hot catalytic converters. Incendiary ammo, not really all that practical, but don't think I want it banned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dallas53
#24 ·
Guys come on i get it... i agree for the most part, but where do we draw the line on some things... some stuff just dosent need to be made. There are VERY stupid people out there that just do crazy $hit just for the sake of being very stupid, or worse yet, "mental sick people could" use the stuff against others. Yes, nukes & tanks are an extreme, but you know what i`m saying. I`m not in favor of ban`s per say, but their ARE people out there that shouldnt be able to have some things. We`ll just agree to disagree on some things.
 
#25 ·
exactly where do you set the limits? that is very good question.

and mental sick people? someone who is hell bent on mass killing, doesn't necessarily need a gun to go out and kill people. remember the Boston Marathon a few years ago. they used pressure cookers to make bombs out of of. do you think we should have a ban on pressure cookers?

see the gun grabbers, and politicians pushing for more gun control laws, focus on guns, as if guns were the only thing that has ever been used to kill people. you never see them going after pressure cookers, or cars, or trucks or any other inanimate object that nutcases have used to kill with, just guns, and always guns.

one thing i firmly believe, that if guns and gunpowder had never been invented, or it tomorrow, every gun on the entire planet disappeared, it would not stop people from killing other people. they would just use other objects.

we have enough laws and don't need anymore. if someone uses a gun in a criminal act, then you prosecute them and enhance the sentence for using a weapon. which there are already laws that provide for such, if they would use them. but what happens, is the entire judicial system is like the TV game show, "Let's Make A Deal" and the criminal lots of times pleads down to lesser charges.

having more laws, restrictions and bans isn't the answer and it never has been, nor will ever be the answer. history has proven that beyond any doubt.
 
#26 ·
I have to agree with the banning. What's the purpose of having a round that can start a fire? Just because you can doesn't mean you should. And the slippery slope argument is a bit tired. Responsible gun owners are just that.....smart enough to know when you are pushing the limits. It's the time of the year when the left coast has had rampant wildfires. All are started by careless people. And unfortunately there are careless firearm owners who haven't the judgement necessary to own and operate some firearms and equipment. The second amendment was intended to preserve the right of gun ownership to law abiding citizens. It doesn't mention criminals or those who aren't smart enough to keep from hurting themselves. With rights come responsibility. It's up to us to use reason and good judgement to fight off the never ending assaults from the liberal powers that would strip us of our rights. Pardon the pun, but some devices (and ammo) just may give them the ammunition they need to further their agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaPow
#28 ·
The 2A only mentions the right of the people to keep and bear arms, that's weapons not just guns.
Any weapon as the whole purpose was for the population to repel a threat from outside or tyranny from inside their own go.

When one is locked up for a crime they are a prisoner of the people. As in the people vs etc.
Once released the RTKABA applies. Unconstitutional laws not withstanding.
Free to walk about. Free to be armed.

As to the ammo it's not the bill of needs, or wants, or someone's opinion of what should be banned.
It's the bill of rights, not subject to the majority whims .

As to the 2a being only directed to law abiding citizens. The guys who wrote it were criminals of the highest order not but a few years before they wrote it. Food for thought.
 
#32 ·
Papow, we could always make the same argument about such things as Tannerite. who really needs a binary explosive agent?

can you come up with one practical purpose it serves, besides that it's fun to use?

lets just go ahead and ban machine guns and suppressors while we are at it. oh snap! they already did, didn't they?

the whole problem is they never stop. they never say, "Okay, we are going to ban incendiary ammo, but we are not going to go after anything else."

if they get that banned, then there will be something else just a little later on down the road that they feel that law abiding gun owners shouldn't have as well.

i think that sometimes some of you think you are dealing with rational people and that they operate with using common sense and logic. the gun grabbers come in two flavors. those who feel no one should have guns but the police and the military and feel no private citizen should have then so they will be more compliant. and the second group that are just beyond using any rational thinking and think guns are bad. one groups is simply pushing a political agenda, the other group is operating with emotion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghost1958
#34 ·
Papow, we could always make the same argument about such things as Tannerite. who really needs a binary explosive agent?

can you come up with one practical purpose it serves, besides that it's fun to use?

lets just go ahead and ban machine guns and suppressors while we are at it. oh snap! they already did, didn't they?

the whole problem is they never stop. they never say, "Okay, we are going to ban incendiary ammo, but we are not going to go after anything else."

if they get that banned, then there will be something else just a little later on down the road that they feel that law abiding gun owners shouldn't have as well.

i think that sometimes some of you think you are dealing with rational people and that they operate with using common sense and logic. the gun grabbers come in two flavors. those who feel no one should have guns but the police and the military and feel no private citizen should have then so they will be more compliant. and the second group that are just beyond using any rational thinking and think guns are bad. one groups is simply pushing a political agenda, the other group is operating with emotion.
Dallas, i totally respect you, we`ve shared many a chats in here together, and i get it buddie, i really do, but b!tchin about it dosent fix the problem. What i wanna see, is what all you people are doing to stop the liberals. So far all i see is a bunch of members jumping all over somebody if they disagree with something. People say they stand together, but its a unbelievable HUGE bunch of BS as far as i`m concerned. All i see is a bunch of attitudes, and all this legal beagle bs that they wanna ban my "this and that".

Most of you dont even know how bad it has become with the communist gov (cuomo) in our state of NY. Some people sit here and say, "well i`d move the F outta there". Yeah ok, i`ve heard THAT a gazillion times. And do what, move to another state until the new state you moved into gets infected with libtards, then pick up and move again, then when you run out of places to run to, then what...??? No, you stand, you unite, you fight, until they are ALL destroyed. And please dont blab your traps about this and that ammo BS, it makes you all really look inferior. So unless you people show me the proof that your winning against the libtards, instead of b!tching about the libtards, i`m pretty much going to pull back from this whole ban my ammo complaining bs. If you dont want all these bans coming at you, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT...!!! Actions speak louder than words.
 
#47 ·
Tannerite, incendiary rounds and bump fire.
Rather than worry about the government restricting our firearm we are worried about these items? These items when used by a nut job or an idiot can be nothing but fodder for those who want to ban and regulate firearms. No matter how you label it tannerite is an explosive and needs to be addressed and regulated as such. Bump fire? That basically converts a semi-auto rifle into full auto....same opinion....regulate it as such.
Incendiary rounds? Nobody can argue that is an effective self-defense or hunting round.
I'll risk repeating myself.....just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Just my opinion.
 
#48 ·
my brother and father, both have bump stocks for their AR's, and all of us do use Tannerite on occasion for the fun of it. last i checked, none of us were nut jobs, or are looking to use any of those items for criminal purposes, and last i checked, we aren't idiots either. and the bump fire doesn't turn a semi-auto into a fully auto firearm. and Tannerite is only an explosive when mixed and subjected to a specific force to ignite it. and incendiary rounds? what about some of the other gimmick rounds on the market for shotguns?

sometimes people just enjoy shooting odd things for the fun of it.

and all of those items are deemed legal for law abiding citizens to own and use by the BATFE.

allowing them one foot in the door to ban one item, only leads them to trying to push the envelope to ban more items at a later date. simple fact is, those who wish to ban guns and gun accessories, and even certain types of ammo, are never satisfied with one thing that will appease them. they keep right on coming.

do you really think you can reason with people who would think that banning guns is good thing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghost1958
#55 ·
Nonsense. But I'll play. If you want to adhere to the 2nd, then no gun should be allowed that didn't exist when it was written.....how's that for interpretation of your comment?
Gun crimes decrease every year while gun ownership increases. Two observations can be made from that. One that more guns can actually make society safer. As for the second one.....maybe....just maybe the regulations in place are contributing to that safety. I'm sure you know at least one person who you think should not own a firearm. Would you want them to have unlimited access to full auto? Law abiding intelligent gun owners aren't the problem. Everyday there are accidental shootings across the country, some minor but some result in death. How willing are you to open up and deregulate gun laws? Those on the left would take away guns in a heartbeat if they could. I stand behind the 2nd as it is now interpreted and enforced. Any move to unrestricted gun ownership and various types of now restricted ammo and guns will only push those who would abolish the 2nd amendment to fight more vigorously. Look why there were magazine bans. Look at the now bump-fire issue. Mass shootings have given way to the success of these bans. I'm not against restricting any rights....but common sense has way more influence than any of those rights.
 
#56 ·
if we adhere to that line of thinking, what about the 1st Amendment? should we relegate ourselves to just pen and paper and using letter with stamps on them? how about TV's, radios, and the internet? those didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written.

more regulations do not make us safer. they only apply to the law abiding citizens who follow the rules. last i checked, criminals are criminals, because they don't follow the rules of society. no law is going to stop someone determined to commit heinous criminal acts. not one of them has, and not any new ones will either. laws only give us a way to punish those who break the laws. that is why we don't need more items banned from their use by law abiding citizens, but need the laws enforced when people use them for criminal reasons.

and common sense? like i said, how about holding our judicial system accountable? making them actually enforcing the laws we already have? we don't need more items banned. we just need to hold those who commit criminal acts responsible and give them harsher penalties when they use a firearm in a criminal act. those laws and penalties already exist, if they would actually use them instead of pleading cases down just to get a conviction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghost1958
#59 ·
Actually it was your thinking about adhering to the 2nd that inspired my comment. You can't pick and choose what it means to suit your needs. I'll pretty much stop engaging on this thread since it's a no win for all of us. But I'll leave it at this.
Rather than thinking more things should be allowed or de-regulated we should be more concerned about keeping what we have. We have the control now. But ridiculous demands will open us up to more scrutiny. Misuse of what we have / had is how restrictions get built.
We know that a semi-auto rifle isn't an assault weapon but those who want to restrict them believe it is. You can't argue with ignorance yet so many of us try and try to no avail.
Preaching to the choir never accomplishes anything.
Hopefully greed and stupidity won't hurt our cause as it does to those who would take away our rights. We have succeeded in keeping what we have because the other side just can't argue effectively because they don't have or want the facts just hyperbole that they repeat over and over again. An incendiary round, a container of Tannenite or a bump fire stock.....none of them are worth defending if it opens the door to more regulation.
No harm, no foul. My opinions aren't intended to change your mind. I'm just speaking mine. The fact that we have a 2nd amendment, regulated as it may be is how we have been able to defend the 1sh amendment, and both of those I exercise often.
 
#66 ·
My guess would be intent. If you shoot someone you can pretty much find dozens of reasons for a lighter sentence....accident, "didn't know it was loaded", I know...bullsh*t and other various excuses. But you can't strangle anyone by accident. Laws are written by lawmakers and dismantled by lawyers. And then precedents which may have been ridiculous in the first place but nonetheless they are used in court as an example of what could happen. But most gun crimes are committed by repeat offenders....at least 80% of the time by some studies. Unfortunately less than 25% get incarcerated if prosecuted at all. It's liberal logic at it's finest....let the gun criminals back on the street and when they commit another crime blame the NRA. That's been going on for decades and will never stop.
 
#69 ·
Agreed the system is legaleezed to distraction.

I'm really not hanging my question on just a gun being used.

Just a weapon.
Example. You really can't shoot someone multiple times killing them then take their wallet by accident.

Nor would it be easy to claim you didn't mean to beat a person to death with a rock..

To prove murder you'll always have to prove at least momentary intent for the most part. Heat of passion.
On up to premeditated which getting a weapon could be used to prove.

Just really think our whole system would run better if premeditated murder has a set sentence weapon or not.
Crime of passion is murder a set sentence weapon or not.

JMO but Joe Thug knows he's going to get the same 50 yrs for grabbing the cash register at the Grab A Gulp with no weapon, as Babyface Bob will for armed bank robbery, there would be alot less Joe Thugs.
Though likely not fewer Babyface Bobs.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top