From DemolitionRanch:
These projectiles, in .45ACP and 12 gauge, fire a center slug as well as 3 outer fragments that are tethered together for a controlled spread. So is this a gimmick, or is it an improvement to self defense ammunition? Let’s find out!
As I remember, bolo rounds first came about during Viet Nam along with Flechette rounds and a few others. I think the flechette rounds were the only ones issued an NSN and issued to US forces.
I wouldn’t use a bolo round for self defense for obvious liability reasons. There are just too many effective and quality rounds available to take the chance.
I can’t think of why I would need it or what I would use it for. Maybe, in a doomsday scenario when being overrun by hoards of Muslim terrorists, zombies or anti-gun liberals?
It’s obviously very close range, no precision shooting with this winger. This may be round without a purpose.
I get the liability objection. But what about killing or maiming innocent bystanders?
Boy, a prosecutor would take this and run all the way to a conviction with it.
Conviction on what charges?
.12 gauge work in semi auto? ?
The original conceptt came from a cannon shell that was linked by a chain to tear down sails to disable ships at sea to board them. This is just hype. The real danger IMO is if a prosecutor gets a hold of this your cut and dried case of self-defense goes out the window. A grand jury will not be sympathetic to a projectile that can so easily be construed as primarily designed to mutilate or disfigure. What if this round were to miss and slash a woman’s face? I think this will only bring an anti-gun effort to ban not only this round but hollow point bullets as well (the latter is already the case in New Jersey). This a bad idea.
It’s amazing how half the people commenting on uncommon rounds are expert defense or prosecuting atorneys. Shooting at someone is always going to be considered attempted homicide or homicide(which is a word for intentional killing and not synonymous with murder). Self defense cases rest on whether or not the shooting was legally justified, not what kind of round you used. A .50 from a barret might be excessive in a non legal sense, but no prosecutor is going to argue that the bullet was too deady/damaging becaise its legal(in most states) to use the broadly termed appropriate level of force. A .22 to the aorta kills someone just as dead as 5 rounds of 7.62 to the head; once you start shooting, it’s either okay and legal to kill the person or its not. You can’t kill people in varying degrees. They either die or they don’t.
I could easily make the argument that an fmj bullet would cause more suffering and has less lethality than a jhp, thus increasing the chances of suffering and maming but not killing, but that doesnt make it illegal to use in self defense. The laws governing self defense apply to the situation, not the weapon(with possibly a few minor exceptions). Booby trapping someone into falling on spikes is illegal. Forget why, just think about this,,,taking one of the aforementioned spikes and putting it in an attacker’s heart is perfeclty legal. Same outcome, but HOW they defended themselves makes the difference. For the record, booby traps are illegal because legal self defense requires you to have made the determination that your life was in peril, and automatically activated weapons by definition do not involve an imminent and reasonable threat.
Oh, and you might want to look up intent. It’s a pretty important legal term. No prosecutor is going to waste his time trying to prove someone’s intent was to do anything but stop the threat when there was a legitimate life/limb theat. If all someone has is birdshot and they fill an intruder with it, think they’re getting aggravated battery charges? Think before you speak