T.I.A.
![tiphat :tiphat:](./images/smilies/tiphat.gif)
Moderator: carlson1
If they were, we could all save a lot of money making our own self-defense and hunting ammo from military surplus.jimlongley wrote:And there was no reason to expect the bullets to be ballistically superior to the original.
That may be what some people think, but it's flawed logic. That is why bullet manufacturers go through so much trouble to make sure the bullets expand and remain intact.USA1 wrote:I've heard of this and always thought it was to cause the bullet to break into four segments which would result in more internal damage to the recipient.
Why would some bank robbers write hold-up notes on the back of their own deposit slips?The Annoyed Man wrote:Why would anybody do this at all, when high quality ammo with better performance is available for only a few dollars more per box?
I said he was from DEEP EAST TEXAS - - - the deer couldn't see the hunter because a Q Beam was shining in it's eyes. I didn't ever say the guy was a legal or ethical hunter. If I knew for a fact he was firelighting deer I would have dropped a dime on him; suspected activity isn't admissible in court.The Annoyed Man wrote:Why would anybody do this at all, when high quality ammo with better performance is available for only a few dollars more per box? I always figured that cheap ball ammo is fine for plinking or a day at the range, but if you had a chunk of money tied up in a hunting trip, why wouldn't you be willing to spend an extra $5 on quality ammo? Penny wise is often pound foolish.