Nightcrawler
Member
Assuming the same kind of bullet, what is the difference between a wound from a handgun and a wound from a rifle? Rifle rounds, depending on calibert, typically will push bullets weighing about the same as many handgun bullets, the just go a lot faster.
So what's the difference if you get hit with a 200 grain bullet if it comes from a 10mm pistol round or a .30 caliber rifle round? (1300-ish FPS vs 2400+)
What difference does it make in soft tissue? I'm assuming the added velocity will make a much bigger "splash"; (dropping a rock in water vs. throwing it in). But unlike water, human tissue is elastic and will often stretch back.
What difference does it make if the bullet hits bone?
Is the only advantage of a rifle the ability to retain its energy at longer ranges than a handgun? Are they really any more likely to incapacitate with one shot? Why or why not?
So what's the difference if you get hit with a 200 grain bullet if it comes from a 10mm pistol round or a .30 caliber rifle round? (1300-ish FPS vs 2400+)
What difference does it make in soft tissue? I'm assuming the added velocity will make a much bigger "splash"; (dropping a rock in water vs. throwing it in). But unlike water, human tissue is elastic and will often stretch back.
What difference does it make if the bullet hits bone?
Is the only advantage of a rifle the ability to retain its energy at longer ranges than a handgun? Are they really any more likely to incapacitate with one shot? Why or why not?