[edpc]

Interesting work. I enjoyed the read. However, I did take issue with one sentence.....

The impact of the bullet upon the body is no more than the recoil of the weapon.

That would have to mean a heavy gas operated rifle, like a WWII M1 would have less impact with its 30.06 projectile than a light, bolt action rifle of the same caliber and barrel length at the same distance. I find that hard to believe.

[edpc]

Perhaps a better example (since the article was about handguns) would be a gas operated Desert Eagle, with a 6in barrel in .44 mag compared to a 6in S&W Model 29 firing the same load.

[umgud]

Gotta have a gun
Gotta have shot placement
Gotta have penetration/expansion is a bonus
Gotta be able to have quick followup shots

[umgud]

The impact of the bullet upon the body is no more than the recoil of the weapon.

Recoil on what, from what? A .30 to .45 diameter case against the entire surface of the handhold? Thru a 14 ounce or 52 ounce handgun?

[Ellendra]

The impact of the bullet upon the body is no more than the recoil of the weapon.

That's just basic laws of physics, phrased to sound misleading. Yes, the force exerted on the bullet is the same as the force exerted on the gun. There is some friction loss by the time said bullet reaches the body, so it's technically accurate to say that the impact on the body will never be more than the force exerted on the weapon. But in a bullet all that force is concentrated, while in the gun the force is spread out. The design and weight of the gun makes a huge difference in how that force feels by the time it reaches the shooter's arm(s). The author seems to have substituted "force" for "recoil" and made their statement misleading.

Yes, I overanalyze things.