>>27714193>You've said nothing and your post sucks.Quite frankly, you've said nothing as well since you have no sources to back up your shitty little claims.
>All of which is dependent on speed.No moron, ke=1/2mv^2, velocity is an important factor in armor penetration, sectional density is a more important way to display when talking specifically about the projectile.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectional_density#Ballistics>yes it comes out the end of a short barrel with all the same capability of the longer barrelNo, see pic in
>>27709451. There are more factors to consider than just "it goes fast enough" If it's going fast enough to yaw and overcome the integrity of the round, you now have a much nastier wound, possible multiple permanent wound channels after the projectile breaks up.
Futhermore comparing a pistol round to a rifle round is retawded, the rifle is almost always superior ballistically save for a few exceptions when the pistols get really power, such as a S&W 500 or that .50 BMG pistol versus say, an M1 Carbine.
>http://www.academia.edu/2087375/Medico-legal_Study_of_Shockwave_Damage_by_High_Velocity_Missiles_in_Firearm_InjuriesIn this autopsy study doctors found wounds from rifles causing remote wounding, that is wounding not along the track of the permanent cavity, due to the high energy transfer rates into the tissue, the temp cavity was causing it's own destruction.
You're trying to compare a pistol round to one that has 3 times greater the kinetic energy and velocity.
