please let’s keep this civil and open.
Here are my thoughts on ammo for defensive uses:
It doesn’t really matter very much. There, I said it. Let me explain my thoughts.
Bullet placement is what really matters, everything else is secondary. The extra .04” of expansion matters little if you hit nothing vital. The extra 2” of penetration matters little if you hit nothing vital. The extra power of a larger caliber matters little if you don’t put it where it can do it’s job.
My thought is that I don't know why this keeps coming up. Why don't people want to believe that bullets that expand on impact are, everything else being equal, more effective than bullets which do not? Hunters are in no doubt when it comes to rifle bullets; who would hunt deer with FMJ these days? Then why do we keep having this discussion about pistol bullets?
The police, who use pistols more than any other organized group I can think of, only want expanding bullets. They went through bullet fads in the poast that did not last because they did not work, like soft-nosed pistol bullets, extra-heavy bullets, semi-wadcutters and Keith-style bullets, and so on. They have stuck with expanding bullets for 40 years, and more reliable expansion has been diligently and successfully pursued because it has been generally desired by the police and others.
I apologize if I have made point that is irrelevant or has been made multiple times before. It is late on Christmas Day, and I have not read the whole thread as I should have before posting. I just don't know why people keep saying this about pistol bullets. If that is excessive thread drift, or if this post seems rude, I hope a mod will delete this post. I don't mean to be rude to the OP, I am just puzzled by this urge to disbelieve what evidence we have on this subject.
PS - By everything else being equal, I mean the assailant, the point of impact, the cartridge, etc. The only difference being the bullet.
