Originally Posted by
BarnesX.308
I guess this argument has two different aspects.
Same cartridge and different bullet. - Apples.
Same bullet and different cartridges. - Oranges.
Rockport - you are arguing apples and I am arguing oranges. In the apple category, I want a bullet that expands a lot but can still penetrate. I would like the best of both worlds, but would take slightly less expansion to get that pass-through.
As for the oranges, I guess I'm arguing against the people who prefer lower velocity because they think it leaves all the energy in the animal. They think faster cartridges just poke through and leave little energy anywhere but in the tree behind the animal.
But, we are arguing about different things. So, we could really agree on everything.....if we were talking about the same things.
I am losing my focus.
Well when I said your either missing the point of the people your disagreeing with are missing the point and it sounds like its them and maybe you are using their faulty logic to dispute the whole concept.
There is a legit case for leaving all the energy in the animal but if they are just using less energy to achieve that they are not getting the point(if that were they case we would just throw rocks at deer). Those people don't know what they are talking about but the concept of leaving the energy in the animal is real.
I agree 100% on erroring on the side of a pass through but trying to get the best of both worlds.
A real comparison would be using your rifle with bullets that offer more and less resistance. That is what you would have to show to prove the people wrong that actually know what they are talking about. The no pass through group that knows what they are talking about wants to achieve no pass through by dumping more energy not using less energy.