View Single Post
Old October 4, 2012, 10:07 PM   #21
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs:
481-
You do realize that pistol rounds worked before the FBI set these "standards?"
Billy,

Of course they did. The laws of physics are immutable (that is, they are unchangeable) and the standard (the FBI protocols) simply defines a desired level of performance that is obtainable within the confines of those immutable physical laws. If you're under the impression that the FBI protocols somehow altered physical law, I can assure that they didn't- bullets and their behavior in the gun (interior ballistics), through the air (external ballistics), and inside of targets (terminal ballistics) has remained as it always has.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs:
And then, we aren't the FBI or LE, are we?
I never said that "we" were in the FBI. That's distractionary and misdirected at best.

Just the same, those loads that meet the FBI protocol specifications have a well documented history of performing well on the street under a broad spectrum of conditions and barriers. If you wish to handicap yourself with 'sub-par' loads (in this case, those that don't meet the FBI service pistol specs) that's fine with me, but just because we all aren't in the FBI or LE (actually I am) doesn't mean that we have to settle for the lowered standard that has been established for smaller/lower powered back-up weapons like the .380. You, I, and everyone else is permitted (and I hope encouraged) to carry the most effective ammunition that they can- this in spite of the misguided and dangerous mindset that simply because "we" (in the collective sense) are not the FBI/LE we shouldn't. Limiting ourselves in that manner is simply "horse and buggy" thinking.
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

Last edited by 481; October 4, 2012 at 10:32 PM.
481 is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05370 seconds with 7 queries