I can’t see any advantage to their odd .50 round vs. a 10mm. The claim of increased efficiency “because less kinetic energy is needed to expand the bullet” makes zero sense given that the whole idea of expanding the bullet is to dump kinetic energy into the target.
“I can’t see any advantage to their odd .50 round vs. a 10mm. The claim of increased efficiency “because less kinetic energy is needed to expand the bullet” makes zero sense given that the whole idea of expanding the bullet is to dump kinetic energy into the target.”
As certain as the sun rises in the east, gun nerds are gonna gun nerd.
May 26th, 2016 at 8:31 am
What’s that old saw? Why a .45, cause they don’t make a .46. Well, it looks like someone just jumped right over that.
May 26th, 2016 at 6:16 pm
I can’t see any advantage to their odd .50 round vs. a 10mm. The claim of increased efficiency “because less kinetic energy is needed to expand the bullet” makes zero sense given that the whole idea of expanding the bullet is to dump kinetic energy into the target.
May 27th, 2016 at 4:13 pm
“I can’t see any advantage to their odd .50 round vs. a 10mm. The claim of increased efficiency “because less kinetic energy is needed to expand the bullet” makes zero sense given that the whole idea of expanding the bullet is to dump kinetic energy into the target.”
As certain as the sun rises in the east, gun nerds are gonna gun nerd.