-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
The boomers were right...
- Thread starter Shotgun Surgery
- Start date
Wait, tell us what boomers think happens to criminals just from hearing the sound of a shotgun shell being racked.
Killing takes only paying for the body removal after the battle. Grievous injury takes much more…. Mostly more money. Wars are won when one side decides it can’t afford the conflict.
One of the reasons USSR collapsed was that they could not keep up financially, that included all the medical and disability care.
Bullet selection was definite part of that equation.
I think the stat was about 12000 rounds for every kill in battle. But injured? That’s another stat completely.
Russian doctrine was different than ours hence the 7.62x39 which was a more effective killing round.
Never thought of it myself until a three star explained it while we were deployed in Turkey.
Surely that would have hastened the Soviet's rollout of the AK-74, with its equivalent of the 5.56, the 5.45x39, so that they too could have increased the actuarial benefits of leaving more injured and fewer dead Americans on the battlefields of Europe.
That was much of the decision as I understand it. Weight was part of it as well.
Other anecdotal "facts" dictate that one of the brass shot a New Armalite Rifle at a watermelon and was "thoroughly impressed" at the result.
He was not impressed at how effectively it "wounded" the watermelon. I thought that myth died with disco.
This is up there with the whole "they could use our ammo but we couldn't use theirs" nonsense that plenty of GI's proliferated and the gun community has never fully recovered from either.
So staying on topic, 9mm was not chosen to "wound rather than kill" either.
What kills my soul is how contradictory Fudd/Boomer lore is. Because although 9mm aint enough to kill, they'll claim how .22LR is the "most deadly caliber there is" Without considering the other factoids that explain why that's the case.
But i'll still say this. I like .45AARP. I trust hard cast loading of it in the woods more than I would a 9mm. But I carry 9mm for SD. And truthfully speaking, the difference apples to apples is negligible at best in most cases. If you like a slightly more powerful round at the potential cost of capacity, I understand. Just as much as I understand preferring more capacity or potential deep concealability over said power factor.
He was not impressed at how effectively it "wounded" the watermelon. I thought that myth died with disco.
This is up there with the whole "they could use our ammo but we couldn't use theirs" nonsense that plenty of GI's proliferated and the gun community has never fully recovered from either.
So staying on topic, 9mm was not chosen to "wound rather than kill" either.
What kills my soul is how contradictory Fudd/Boomer lore is. Because although 9mm aint enough to kill, they'll claim how .22LR is the "most deadly caliber there is" Without considering the other factoids that explain why that's the case.
But i'll still say this. I like .45AARP. I trust hard cast loading of it in the woods more than I would a 9mm. But I carry 9mm for SD. And truthfully speaking, the difference apples to apples is negligible at best in most cases. If you like a slightly more powerful round at the potential cost of capacity, I understand. Just as much as I understand preferring more capacity or potential deep concealability over said power factor.
