But you clearly implied it.
No I did not. I responded with my own observation that there seemed to be a consensus of experts in the community. In fact,
I did not even explicitly say what that consensus was.
What I did imply (though without stating it explicitly) was that the consensus of experts in the community is that expansion provides practical benefit.
One could also reasonably argue that I implied that I disagreed with your assertion and I'll readily admit that I do disagree with it.
However, at no point did I claim or imply that you "stated exactly that it had zero value". What I did was disagree with your original assertion.
It is not reasonable to take my general disagreement with your comment and try to turn it into specific disagreement with a statement that I did not state or imply I disagreed with.
Example:
Person A: "The only value in paper money is the artwork printed on it."
Person B: "Hmm. There seems to be a pretty solid consensus about the value of paper money."
Person A: "Where did I state exactly that paper money has zero value?"
Person B clearly disagrees with person A.
Person A clearly did not state that "paper money has zero value" so the implication in his second statement that he made no such statement is accurate.
Person B clearly did not claim, nor imply that Person A stated "exactly that paper money has zero value" so Person A's second statement is irrelevant.
At what point did I state it had zero value.....?
I disagree with the statement you made--the one that I quoted, not this one that you made up.
I have not claimed, nor implied that you stated expansion had zero value.
Can we be done with this? I'm pretty sure you can poke around for awhile and come up with another red herring, but this one is pretty well exhausted.
Let's keep in mind that I stated my personal opinion, presented my sphere of experience...
If you meant it as an opinion, it makes sense to state that you mean it as an opinion, or at least to make it clear by the choice of wording. Yes, of course, if that's merely your opinion, then it needs no proof. I responded the way I did because it appeared you were stating it as a fact since there was no mention of the comment being nothing more than an opinion nor anything in the wording that pointed in that direction.
Well except for the fact that I did no such thing.
To be fair, that is EXACTLY what you did.
You made an assertion that appeared to be a statement of fact and provided no support for it. Then when I responded with an observation ("...there doesn't
seem to be controversy...) you immediately:
1. Tried to accuse me of saying something I clearly did not.
2. Demanded that I provide proof.
That's an obvious double standard.
A properly placed bullet, regardless of type, ALWAYS trumps an improperly placed expanded bullet.
True statement. Not that it proves anything about the value of expansion as any improperly placed bullet, whether it expands or not is trumped by a properly placed bullet. In fact, I made exactly this point in my last post.
Any bullet, regardless of type, that penetrates vitals ALWAYS trumps an expanded bullet that falls short.
As far as terminal ballistics go (hunting) this is almost always true. There are some weird events where violent expansion of rifle bullets seems to have a remote effect even when penetration is lacking but generally speaking, especially in terms of hunting this seems to be accurate. Animals can't self-assess so they don't react based on anything other than pure physiological damage.
When it comes to people, things are different. A person who looks down and sees a crater blown in their torso by a round that expanded violently can be pretty impressed--enough so that they choose to give up even if the bullet didn't penetrate at all. On the other hand, a person shot with a non-expanding bullet that wounds them fatally but that doesn't give much external evidence of serious damage might continue fighting effectively without realizing that they're going to be dead in a matter of several seconds.
This is one reason this topic is a difficult one. At first blush it seems that hunting experience should answer all the hard questions. But the problem is that animals only react based on physiological damage. People, on the other hand, can self-assess and make decisions based on that assessment and on how they believe it might affect their future as opposed to simply reacting to the actual physiological effects of the bullet.
I recall reading an article that was written many years ago by one pundit, who speculated that the violent expansion and often visible cratering effect of the .357Mag 125gr JHP round may have been one of the reasons it was so effective on the street. He speculated that attackers who looked down to see immediately obvious external damage were highly disinclined to continue the attack even if they were not seriously wounded.
This is why drugged up attackers seem to be superhuman. In reality, they aren't superhuman at all, they just aren't capable of properly self-assessing and making rational decisions about the future. That means unlike rational humans, they continue attacking until they are physiologically damaged to the point of being unable to continue.
There are many documented issues of .38 Special and even .45 auto failing to penetrate a skull.
And even a few of bullets penetrating the skull but failing to stop the attacker. There was an incident some years ago where a woman was shot in the head while in her car. The bullet (.44Mag, as I recall) drove directly through her head from front to back, between the two halves of her brain without causing significant injury.
As I recall, the "Terminator" shooting involved Officer Chaney firing a bullet into Mullery's head at contact distance without killing him--he had to shoot him again to completely stop the attack.
Carrying a more powerful gun is better-but how much better? 10%? 25%?
As this thread demonstrates, after many, many years of attempting to answer that question, no one has come up with a generally accepted method for accurately quantifying the real-world stopping power of self-defense handguns.
But against 2 and most 4 legged varmints it is deadly.
