• GardenGeek
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Yes and no. I think the reasoning behind this often has to do with how the projectile behaves after striking the target. Generally speaking, a distinction is made between deformation-type and fragmentation-type projectiles, and, if I understand the arguments correctly, it’s assumed that lead-free projectiles don’t fragment as effectively or, in the case of deformation-type projectiles, don’t mushroom as well as lead-based ones do. I don’t know if there was any truth to that when lead-free ammunition was first developed, but today that’s definitely no longer the case, and that argument is therefore invalid.

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      The deformation is exactly it. That’s why I’m that class I went to they demoed out. The copper bullet perfectly petaled the way it was supposed to into a star like pattern. That would leave a serious wound channel to bleed out of.

    • spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      That technical level of discussion is all totally BS as far as politics is concerned. If your target can be harmed and isn’t armored, almost any kind of bullet will harm them. If they’re armored properly, nothing civilians get access to is going to harm them.

      If you’re defending from an intruder, do you think they’ll be stopped faster by six bullets that fragment into five pieces each, or six bullets that fragment into three pieces each? Or maybe your (royal your: the people who seriously whine about all gun regulation) dumb ass is just splitting hairs after six shots…