• FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    You’re correct, but also completely wrong at the same time. Yes, you can have a lighter bullet that is faster that carries the same kinetic energy. It might even hold its energy longer if it’s more aerodynamic. Where you are wrong is the ability to transfer that energy. A full metal jacket would pass clean through the target without transferring most of its energy into the target. A lead bullet that deforms is going to dump a lot more energy into the target. That’s why you have hollow points and other bullets that are designed to petal and fragment on impact. For hunting the goal is a bullet that does pass all the way through creating two wounds to bleed out and cutting as large of a wound channel as possible. Which is different than say self defense where you want a bullet that dumps all of its energy as fast as possible so you don’t over penetrate and hit your neighbor.

    I guess all of that falls in line with the force being concentrated. It just really isn’t related to density as much as you’re implying. Unless I misunderstood what you’re saying.

    • spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      This isn’t a discussion of lead vs some stupid-ass strawman you all imagine. This is about lead vs literally anything possible.

      If you think copper or other heavy-ish metal bullets could never compete with lead, even on spread and delivered damage, then you are just stupid.

      • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        What strawman did I present? Go ahead, find one.

        That’s literally the opposite of what I have said in this thread. I’ve repeatedly said copper is just as effective with the only downside being that it is more expensive. Why don’t you calm down and actually read what was said instead of reacting defensively.

        • spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          rofl if you continue to fail to understand how lead isn’t the only viable option, you’re only proving how pathetic and ignorant YOU care to be on the topic. Pathetic. Genuinely, your view is ignorance manifest.

          You’re defending using literal biotoxins as projectiles. You are a vile piece of shit who would readily violate many treaties of the past. You are a fucking loser who fails to understand the problems of certain technological advancement. You are a braindead stone sitting in the stream of the past.

          • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            Again, that’s literally the opposite of what I have said in this thread. Try reading instead of knee jerk reacting. The ad hominem attacks aren’t helping you.