- Jul 29, 2014
- 49,982
...I was hesitant to post this video because I knew it would be parsed down to the molecular minutae of stats, much like the ad nauseum arguments in BMW motorcycle forums about whether SAE or synthetic is better for your engine...
Synthetic is better. Everyone knows that.
No way! .40 S&W!
How can we have a real discussion about what is best without having the .45acp mentioned?
My brothers lawn guy has a friend who has a cousin who's next door neighbors great uncle was a DeltaSealRanger and served with Dick Marcinko in the Mekong Delta and saw a Viet Cong get shot in the pinky toe with a 1911 and the exit wound tore his arm off.
I heard of something like this happening once...scared hell out of me.
On the video:
If the choice to be illustrated is "weapon" and not "cartridge", why would we test penetration/expansion?
Changing cartridges can change the whole aspect of the demonstrated terminal performance. A shotgun loaded with smaller #1 or #4 buckshot (NOT birdshot)...a 9mm with 147s...an AR with lighter, frangible (HP/SP) bullets.
Standardized penetration media would have helped clarify things too. Some bullets encountered materials other bullets did not. How can they be compared?
I guess the military mindset dictated some decisions here. I don't see the limited expansion MK262 (77 grain SMK) being the ideal close range defensive round for an AR-15, even though many military people find it a 'go to'. If it did not exhibit limited expansion, the Hague Convention rules would not allow it. Long range, yes. In place of M-855 in any circumstance, of course. Compared to the myriad of good commercial ammo INTENDED to expand...not so much. I'd suggest that the "overpenetration test" would have gone much differently if a nice 45 or 50 grain HP or soft point had been used.
Still an interesting video. Thank you for posting.