DocHolliday
New member
OK; I'll admit to watching the Day of The Jackal (original version, where he shoots the watermelon with a mercury bullet and it explodes in a zillion pieces) one time too many. Nope, haven't gone off the deep end yet and am not about to suggest that in the Miami FBI fiasco if the bullet which traversed the BG's arm on the way to the pulminary had been a frangible the results would have been better (No pulmonary aorta being severed but the BG's arm tendons turned to mush and consequently unable to return fire with accuracy). But I do have a reasonable(?) question. The argument against frangibles seems to be#1 They're expensive (true) #2 They penetrate less (well, less than .38 hollowpoint, which in turn penetrates less than hardball, which penetrates less than .357mag,etc.--still I'd hate to be standing behind the BG or an unfortunate drywall with any of those rounds, frangibles included. and#3 They're light and don't feed well in pistols( probably true even with today's guns but not completely sure). This is the argument in gun rags which appers to have lead to the middle of the road "conventional wisdom"i.e; " Frangibles do nothing better than a good hollowpoint and cost much more but they're good for home defense as they won't over penetrate(Really??) Therefore stick with hollowpoints". Now does anybody out there have any real world experience with frangibles? I'd appreciate your input. I know it's anecdotal and not "scientific" (After decades of M&S vs Dr.F,german goats, gelatin blocks and light vs heavy and slow charts we still seem to go with what feels right, don't we?) And Glasers,QuikShok,Mullins or MagSafe may not be available where you live, as The Constitution is often prohibited by local laws. . .But I would appreciate feedback. Hope this 'll be an interesting thread.