Reply from Questioneer
Thanks folks, for answering my question. In these times, where we as Americans are battling anti-gun legislations/legislators, batnuts anti-gun lawyers in courtrooms, died-in-the-wool pantywaisted slobs, who would pick up a revolver/pistol with two fingers, (with the unspoken 'EWW'' comment on their lips), my thoughts are simple. WHY GIVE THEM A TOEHOLD? Jacketed hollow points do not come to mind for hunting for the average know-nothing. They are seen in all the entertainment media, as bullets used to kill people. Such is not the case with semi- and full wadcutter bullets. Elmer Keith used semi-wadcutters for all his hunting needs. Full wadcutters are sold, with the word 'target', or something that would bring to mind 'target' upon reading it. Now, it is a known fact, that there have been engineering failures of hollow point bullets to 'work as advertised', and in fact, become modified semi-wadcutter bullets, complete with lint. It is a known fact, that you have to drive a hollow point bullet faster, for the correct function of the hollow point to 'work as advertised'. To do that, you create a greater recoil, felt in the hand of the shooter. I am recoil-sensitive. I believe that using semi- or full lead wadcutters belays any implied 'intent to do bodily harm through bullet purchase or design'. I know that the majority of wadcutters run an average of 750 fps, en toto, which is in Mas Ayoob's ballpark figure of 750 to 850 fps. There are those of us alive, who remember what a 158 grain round nose lead bullet did as a 'contact shot', as demonstrated in Dallas, TX. For the record, over at brassfetcher dot com, they tested the Buffalo Bore 150 grain Hollow Base WadCutter. It sped along at 899 FPS, out of a 1 and 7/8ths inch barrel snubby. It penetrated the gel block 20 inches. That might work on one of these Hogzillas, but it might not the thing to send through, to the folks down the street, no?
