[nate45]

The problem with telling stories about shooting results and relating feelings about effectiveness; is that there is no way to corroborate it. Thats why penetration tests are important as evidence.

A shallow wound that dosen't reach the vital organs will be ineffective. The reason I used the rethorical questions that I did, is because all of those examples, wild boar, deer and home invader require adequate penetration to reach their vitals.

Originally Posted by shurshot

although I have never killed a deer with birdshot and would not attempt it, as it is unethical and not to mention illegal

Why is it unethical and illegal? It is unethical and illegal because bird shot lacks the penetration and effectivness to kill deer. Just as in lacks the penetration and effectivness to stop determined attackers.


Pro Tip: I could write all sorts of shooting stories and the effects I've seen. Sometimes I do as it relates to the topic. However, there is no way to verify pseudo-anonymous tales.

Here is an example:

Originally Posted by shurshot

Thanks Al-Gore, for inventing the Net and bringing all these armchair Gun experts together online!!!!

Now from that post someone might gather that Al Gore invented the internet, when in fact he did not. "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" In fact he never even said that he did.

Thats why I post links to testing, scientific evidence and articles by well known defense and firearms experts. It corroborates my claims much better than un-sourced anecdotes.