Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
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
.
Forums
The Range
Handgun Discussion
The .45 G.A.P.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JD8" data-source="post: 1264590" data-attributes="member: 24"><p>Me too. I'm not talking about predicitve theory. It's a fact that the human body is made of various tissues that vary in consistency. The physics of certain rounds will vary, and therefore the results will vary. The "everything is equal" crowd cannot account for the human variable but stay true in their assumptions. Their theory either relies upon ballistic gel OR street reports. There's too many variables for one to intelligently say one way or another when it comes to "street" reports because the data collection isn't done in a consistent manner. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well with the sufficient penetration, you're on to something. However, in the real world some rounds/loads glance off, don't penetrate, don't expand etc etc. Proof positive they aren't all the same. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I wouldn't call it a security blanket. However, if one belives a rifle performs better, they'd be a hypocrite to not want more velocity or sectional density in their handgun platforms. <img src="/images/smilies/biggrin.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" data-shortname=":D" /> Like I said, there's not a critical period of a certain FPS or weight where a round peforms/doesn't perform. </p><p></p><p>Back to why you hate the GAP? I still don't get it.... if they are all the same? in your opinon.... why would you care what rounds/platforms are developed?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JD8, post: 1264590, member: 24"] Me too. I'm not talking about predicitve theory. It's a fact that the human body is made of various tissues that vary in consistency. The physics of certain rounds will vary, and therefore the results will vary. The "everything is equal" crowd cannot account for the human variable but stay true in their assumptions. Their theory either relies upon ballistic gel OR street reports. There's too many variables for one to intelligently say one way or another when it comes to "street" reports because the data collection isn't done in a consistent manner. Well with the sufficient penetration, you're on to something. However, in the real world some rounds/loads glance off, don't penetrate, don't expand etc etc. Proof positive they aren't all the same. I wouldn't call it a security blanket. However, if one belives a rifle performs better, they'd be a hypocrite to not want more velocity or sectional density in their handgun platforms. :D Like I said, there's not a critical period of a certain FPS or weight where a round peforms/doesn't perform. Back to why you hate the GAP? I still don't get it.... if they are all the same? in your opinon.... why would you care what rounds/platforms are developed? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Handgun Discussion
The .45 G.A.P.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom