For the average guy who goes to work, goes shopping with the family, eats at the local restaurant, we are told to try to get away before ever firing a shot in self defense. We shouldn't even present our weapon if at all possible, much less fire a shot, if we can leave the area. If we ever have to actually shoot in self defense, we are told to stop shooting when the threat is neutralized. The legal system will be judging every single shot fired afterwards.
If all of the above is true and a good guideline, then should the average guy really be carrying bonded, barrier penetrating ammo?
We fire the least number of shots possible to avoid hitting bystanders. So why carry ammo that could possibly penetrate a barrier and hit a bystander?
Effectiveness on the intended target is the only reason. If a bonded Gold Dot is MUCH more effective at stopping a bad guy than an unbonded Golden Saber, then I would prefer the Gold Dot. If this were to be true, it would be possible to stop the bad guy with less shots, which is the goal for the average guy.
So the question is, are bonded bullets really any more effective than unbonded bullets?
Are they enough better to justify their use by the average Joe?
Do bonded bullets really penetrate barriers any better than unbonded bullets?
I've talked to an officer who worked in a morgue and he swears by Gold Dots. But seeing that Gold Dots were very effective, doesn't mean he actually got a good sense of the effectiveness of other ammo such as the Golden Sabers.
Both of these rounds have proven effective on deer, (so I've read) and the Sabers tend to expand more and penetrate a little less in testing I've done. I believe both of these rounds would stop a threat fairly equally but I have no actual evidence of one being better than the other.
If all of the above is true and a good guideline, then should the average guy really be carrying bonded, barrier penetrating ammo?
We fire the least number of shots possible to avoid hitting bystanders. So why carry ammo that could possibly penetrate a barrier and hit a bystander?
Effectiveness on the intended target is the only reason. If a bonded Gold Dot is MUCH more effective at stopping a bad guy than an unbonded Golden Saber, then I would prefer the Gold Dot. If this were to be true, it would be possible to stop the bad guy with less shots, which is the goal for the average guy.
So the question is, are bonded bullets really any more effective than unbonded bullets?
Are they enough better to justify their use by the average Joe?
Do bonded bullets really penetrate barriers any better than unbonded bullets?
I've talked to an officer who worked in a morgue and he swears by Gold Dots. But seeing that Gold Dots were very effective, doesn't mean he actually got a good sense of the effectiveness of other ammo such as the Golden Sabers.
Both of these rounds have proven effective on deer, (so I've read) and the Sabers tend to expand more and penetrate a little less in testing I've done. I believe both of these rounds would stop a threat fairly equally but I have no actual evidence of one being better than the other.
Last edited: