| **DONOTDELETE** |
| () |
| 15/12/05 04:08 AM |
Re: 405 win questions
|
JPK,
I am glad that you have had good luck with the solids. The soft point versus solids debate is an old one, and we certainly will not resolve it today. In my experience the caliber and construction of the bullet has a significant impact on how well it will hold together, and these design constraints directly affect (or should anyway) the decision to go with solid or soft point.
The Hague convention has little to do with:
In reply to:
but the goal of an army is to render the other army's soldiers incapable of fighting. This does not neccesarily mean dead. A destroyed leg, arm, foot, hand...And a wounded soldier is a greater drain to a civilized opponent than a dead one.
It has to do with minimizing the number of young men butchered in war (mutilation evidently was considered preferrable to death by the Hague convention). Your comments are what was used to win over the so-called civilized nations of the world to agree to the treaty. Unfortunately, the truth is that one wins a war only one way, make the enemy die to the point he doesn't want to die anymore. Wound him and he will recover and come back to fight another day. It is done everyday all over the world.
The goal of any victorious western army is the kill the enemy until he surrenders while minimizing the casualities on it's side. Killing is how wars are won, sad but true.
Regards,
Scott