mljdeckard
Member
Of course shot placement is key. No one would say that they should get anything other than the very best hits they can in a given situation.
HOWEVER, when it usually gets used in here, it is for a couple of reasons. Particularly in subjects like saying why less-powerful cartridges are good for self defense. I feel like some people think a tiny bullet is fine for a defensive encounter because you can hit anyone in the jugular with a .22.
Does this somehow mean that if you use a more powerful cartridge, shot placement ISN'T key? You can be sloppy if you are using a .44.
I also feel like a lot of people are trying to say that shot placement is the cure for for anything that can go bad in a gunfight. Hitting your neighbor through the drywall. Hitting innocent bystanders behind the bad guy who is trying to kill you.
Exactly what is this idea of 'overpenetration'? Where do we get this idea that there is such thing as a bullet that is too powerful? I want a bullet to be likely to completely traverse a human target, under most conditions. There is just penetration, and you want all you can get, particularly with pistol bullets, which are not great tools for the job to begin with.
In real life, in a gunfight, you can't assume that your conditions will be ideal. You can't assume that you will get a full-frontal shot center of mass. You can't assume that all of your shots will hit. Some people make it sound like Rule #4 doesn't apply as long as you are using hollow-points. Like, you can stand grandma behind a bad guy, and go ahead and shoot him, and it's ok because you are using hollow-points. Rule #4 always applies, on the range, on the street, in war. You can't assume that any shot you fire will fail to penetrate what you are shooting at and hit what is behind it. Therefore, why do you not always want the most powerful bullet that will work for your situation?
Or should I not ponder such things while watching Hatfields and McCoys on my DVR?
HOWEVER, when it usually gets used in here, it is for a couple of reasons. Particularly in subjects like saying why less-powerful cartridges are good for self defense. I feel like some people think a tiny bullet is fine for a defensive encounter because you can hit anyone in the jugular with a .22.
Does this somehow mean that if you use a more powerful cartridge, shot placement ISN'T key? You can be sloppy if you are using a .44.
I also feel like a lot of people are trying to say that shot placement is the cure for for anything that can go bad in a gunfight. Hitting your neighbor through the drywall. Hitting innocent bystanders behind the bad guy who is trying to kill you.
Exactly what is this idea of 'overpenetration'? Where do we get this idea that there is such thing as a bullet that is too powerful? I want a bullet to be likely to completely traverse a human target, under most conditions. There is just penetration, and you want all you can get, particularly with pistol bullets, which are not great tools for the job to begin with.
In real life, in a gunfight, you can't assume that your conditions will be ideal. You can't assume that you will get a full-frontal shot center of mass. You can't assume that all of your shots will hit. Some people make it sound like Rule #4 doesn't apply as long as you are using hollow-points. Like, you can stand grandma behind a bad guy, and go ahead and shoot him, and it's ok because you are using hollow-points. Rule #4 always applies, on the range, on the street, in war. You can't assume that any shot you fire will fail to penetrate what you are shooting at and hit what is behind it. Therefore, why do you not always want the most powerful bullet that will work for your situation?
Or should I not ponder such things while watching Hatfields and McCoys on my DVR?