all they did was prove men aint cattle. :-)

Discussion in 'General Handgun Discussion' started by uanda, Jun 23, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. uanda

    uanda New Member

    73
    0
    0
    http://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/TLGR/TLGR4/tlgr4.html

    I mean, I'd have stopped the test after the 3rd cow took over a minute to fall. what's the point? If you're going to let a man shoot/stab you for a minute, at handgun type ranges, then what load you use is of no import. :) Almost all of the cattle took over two minutes to fall, after being shot in the chest multiple times.

    If you can't get your attacker's arms to fall to his sides in 1/2 second or less after you shoot him, (at handgun distances) he'd better not have a gun, and he'd better be out of reach! :)

    They should have tested the guns on dogs. Nearly 5 million people per year are dogbitten in the US 800k of those times , people are bitten badly enough to seek medical attention. So how a load performs vs dogs IS relevant to defensive handgun use

    We choke millions of dogs to death each year, at our city pounds. That takes 30 seconds of horror. How is a bullet to the ribcage (and then another to the brain, in less than 1 second) "less humane"?

    Only 2 loads need to be tested to tell the tale, really. 230 gr .45 jhp's, and a 70 gr, 2 segment .45 hp, , at 200 fps. 20 dogs shot with each load, and you'd have a definitive answer to which is better, heavy/slow or fast/light?
     
  2. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    12
    38
    nonsense thread
     

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.