Brits flip out over.....bullets?

[Tgace]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...otgun-pistol-bullets-garden-weeding-pond.html

'We have friends with young children who could have put one of the bullets in their mouth, or one of our cats could have got hold of one - it doesn’t bear thinking about. 'We were planning to be in this house for years - now we want to move out as soon as we can.

He said they could have eroded over time and we should call the police straight away. It was at that point that we started to panic.' The couple dialled 101 and two officers arrived, quickly realised the seriousness of the situation, and called in CID officers who alerted the fire brigade to drain the ponds because the underwater search unit was not available.

As an examination of the bullets deemed them not to be a risk, the couple were not evacuated

Of course they were not a risk...while I wouldn't fire one, small arms rounds are obscenely stable...these were not UXO/bombs/grenades....

Is this just a case of lack of knowledge or an example of inordinate fear?


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tgace]

Hell...as long as you don't strike the primer you could just about pound a cartridge with a hammer and have nothing happen.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Big Don]

Just like here, when people don't know anything about firearms, they freak the hell out when confronting anything firearm related.
Remember the "Rocket launcher" turned in to a gun buy back?

 

[Sukerkin]

It's the 'lack of knowledge' that gives such a deep illustration of how removed from real firearms most people here have become. People don't have contact with them in the real world so their views are taken straight from fiction and that makes them react in farcical fashion when suddenly confronted with anything to do with firearms.

Given the vaguely inaccurate terms the media uses, like the Daily Fail's story, it's not surprising people don't know anything about either guns or ammunition:

"Police officers arrived at the house where they discovered 2.2mm rifle rounds, up to 30 machine gun rounds, shotgun cartridges, and a cache of 9mm and 8mm rounds."

I am too long removed from gun-handling myself to claim any expertise but I think what they are talking about there will possibly be .22LR, 7.62 Nato, 12 bore, 9mm Parabellum and .32's. Maybe more currently knowledgeable hands can correct any mistakes in my guesses as I used to work in fractions of an inch rather than metric dimension :O?

 

[billc]

I was watching a crime show from the BBC called "Luther," about an police investigator. What struck me was the fact that he didn't carry a firearm, and in the first episode, another detective had to explain the operation of a pistol to solve one of the crimes. I wonder how accurate this show is.

 

[Takai]

Definite lack of knowledge from the journalistic point of view. Doesn't anyone research before they put it in print?

The ammunition was soaked. Cases are water resistant but, not waterproof. Overtime they will corrode, water will destroy the powder and the primer. in layman's terms "they are non-functional". Even if they were "functional" the guy probably had a higher chance of injuring himself with that weed-wacker than the ammuntion.

 

[DennisBreene]

Definite lack of knowledge from the journalistic point of view. Doesn't anyone research before they put it in print?

The ammunition was soaked. Cases are water resistant but, not waterproof. Overtime they will corrode, water will destroy the powder and the primer. in layman's terms "they are non-functional". Even if they were "functional" the guy probably had a higher chance of injuring himself with that weed-wacker than the ammuntion.

I take it you don't consider inserting them manually to be a credible threat.

 

[arnisador]

Sounds like they overreacted--but remember that in Europe, unlike here, you might still get the occasional unexploded WW2 ordinance, so people may have a bit more respect for unidentified ammunition.

 

[Takai]

I take it you don't consider inserting them manually to be a credible threat.

Inserting them manually where? Please be more specific. The condition that this ammo was found in leads to a high probability of FTF or a hang-fire.

Sounds like they overreacted--but remember that in Europe, unlike here, you might still get the occasional unexploded WW2 ordinance, so people may have a bit more respect for unidentified ammunition.

As far as unexploded ordinance in regards to WW2 vs modern ammo you are now looking at a slightly different "animal". With WW2 ammo you would have to be concerned about the primer because it is a "corrosive" type of primer used for reliability in military ammunition. It hasn't been common in Civilian ammo since the 1920's. So once again it is not a lack of respect it is a matter of education. An unexploded 500-pounder should elicit a much different (and rightly so) than a "cache" of ammunition.

 

[arnisador]

I agree. I'm just saying people may have some reason for showing greater concern. It should've been clear that bullets are just bullets--I don't disagree.

 

[Tgace]

It hasn't been common in Civilian ammo since the 1920's.

It's not common in most military ammo anymore either...along with Berdan Priming (which is still pretty popular in Europe but on the wane).

 

[Takai]

It's not common in most military ammo anymore either...along with Berdan Priming (which is still pretty popular in Europe but on the wane).

I agree. With the reference to WW2 munitions I thought the relative differences should be mentioned.

I still remember the story of my uncle "re-purposing" WW2 surplus tracers that he found in a crate while stationed in Vietnam for for his twin 50's (Muddy Water Navy Gunner). He never had one fail and that was after 20 years in one of the worst environments I can think of for ammo. I don't see most modern ammo standing up to that abuse.