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
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Bow vs Pistol...Poll...Another fight night.
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="dfanonymous" data-source="post: 2320328" data-attributes="member: 97050"><p>This should just be a thread vs a poll. I'm about to fight you on a few things.</p><p></p><p>The comparison of lethality, which has been discussed here before is a lengthy conversation. Starting at how to quantify it, and it some regards qualify it. For the purposes of this, we can qualify that dead is dead. So enough on that. </p><p></p><p>However to quantify, I mean to what standard do you hold in comparison, archery equipment vs firearms when they means to quantify a specific value to lethality is different? </p><p></p><p>Archery, while I'm aware a heavy arrow has KE, is not the primary factor that drives lethality, penetration and cutting diameter is if shot placement is all the same, given the outlined example in the OP. </p><p></p><p>Firearms (in general) are incorrectly judged by the higher amount of KE they can put out alone. This coupled with bullet type and construction, as you're aware, as well as mean velocity at terminus have a completely different outcome in how it effects mammals. Hydrostatic shock, tissue displacement and tissue shock are more common to firearms even though they share with archery, penetration. </p><p></p><p>Anyone that's ever shot (living) anything or one with a handgun can probably tell you the effect is underwhelming. Of the most common handgun cartridges used for defense, none of them really provide much of any of those characteristics outline above. However, its still the purpose of them when used with hollow points for defensive purposes. It's still not really comparable, as it's not relying solely on penetration. Manufactures of this ammo, and tacticians understand this, hence why the follow up shot or 5 is highly practiced. </p><p></p><p>Basic stuff. </p><p></p><p>So, what's the standard? These two things are apples vs oranges. Do we quantify this by measure of the bullet that will have the best penetration and cutting diameter? Which would put the 500 mag on the table..</p><p></p><p>Or do we go by best penetrating, but low KE like a .380? Actually less. Which would put the .22 on the table. A hot .25 acp would be in the ball park of most IBOs in archery. </p><p></p><p>Or do we just argue and bicker over 9mm vs .45 and go with one in the middle…because either will give a larger diameter cut, has the potential to penetrate, and produces higher KE then most bows?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dfanonymous, post: 2320328, member: 97050"] This should just be a thread vs a poll. I’m about to fight you on a few things. The comparison of lethality, which has been discussed here before is a lengthy conversation. Starting at how to quantify it, and it some regards qualify it. For the purposes of this, we can qualify that dead is dead. So enough on that. However to quantify, I mean to what standard do you hold in comparison, archery equipment vs firearms when they means to quantify a specific value to lethality is different? Archery, while I’m aware a heavy arrow has KE, is not the primary factor that drives lethality, penetration and cutting diameter is if shot placement is all the same, given the outlined example in the OP. Firearms (in general) are incorrectly judged by the higher amount of KE they can put out alone. This coupled with bullet type and construction, as you’re aware, as well as mean velocity at terminus have a completely different outcome in how it effects mammals. Hydrostatic shock, tissue displacement and tissue shock are more common to firearms even though they share with archery, penetration. Anyone that’s ever shot (living) anything or one with a handgun can probably tell you the effect is underwhelming. Of the most common handgun cartridges used for defense, none of them really provide much of any of those characteristics outline above. However, its still the purpose of them when used with hollow points for defensive purposes. It’s still not really comparable, as it’s not relying solely on penetration. Manufactures of this ammo, and tacticians understand this, hence why the follow up shot or 5 is highly practiced. Basic stuff. So, what’s the standard? These two things are apples vs oranges. Do we quantify this by measure of the bullet that will have the best penetration and cutting diameter? Which would put the 500 mag on the table.. Or do we go by best penetrating, but low KE like a .380? Actually less. Which would put the .22 on the table. A hot .25 acp would be in the ball park of most IBOs in archery. Or do we just argue and bicker over 9mm vs .45 and go with one in the middle…because either will give a larger diameter cut, has the potential to penetrate, and produces higher KE then most bows? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Bow vs Pistol...Poll...Another fight night.
Top