Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Terminal Ballistics
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="nralifer" data-source="post: 2631301" data-attributes="member: 94556"><p>One major problem is funding. The second is deciding what media to use. The proprietary nature of terminal performance means the US military is not really interested officially in expanding bullets becaise of conventions attempting to establish "rules of war." We know in hunting big game that reliable expansion equates to increased rapid lethality, but for the military it is not so much lethality as taking the enemy out of the fight. An injury sufficient to your enemy to have him no longer function and shoot back in many ways is better than an outright kill. They are much more interested in barrier and body armor penetration, so they aren't going to fund a large scale study of expanding hunting bullets. That leaves the private sector whose prime motivation is selling their products over competitors. Given that, we are left with anecdotal experiences of our hunting colleagues, and our own personal experiences. Who is going to donate money to an agency that may probe their product inferior to the competition?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="nralifer, post: 2631301, member: 94556"] One major problem is funding. The second is deciding what media to use. The proprietary nature of terminal performance means the US military is not really interested officially in expanding bullets becaise of conventions attempting to establish “rules of war.” We know in hunting big game that reliable expansion equates to increased rapid lethality, but for the military it is not so much lethality as taking the enemy out of the fight. An injury sufficient to your enemy to have him no longer function and shoot back in many ways is better than an outright kill. They are much more interested in barrier and body armor penetration, so they aren’t going to fund a large scale study of expanding hunting bullets. That leaves the private sector whose prime motivation is selling their products over competitors. Given that, we are left with anecdotal experiences of our hunting colleagues, and our own personal experiences. Who is going to donate money to an agency that may probe their product inferior to the competition? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Terminal Ballistics
Top