Re: Studying an opponent and Omega Strikes

Erol K. Bayburt posts, in part:

  If one is limited to hardball ammo, that does reduce
  the differences between getting shot with a pistol vs
  a rifle, and I can see the argument for eliminating it.

Possibly a duplicate post, but I'd note that Brian was analyzing the
differences between the rounds, rather than the differences between
the shots.  I tend to agree with Brian that rifle rounds are not
generally more lethal, but I think the shots are:  the greater range
of a rifle means the shooter is more likely to be shooting at a target
that isn't shooting back, and may not even know it's being shot at,
especially for the first shot.  That makes the probability of hits,
and the probability of hits in more dangerous locations, more likely.
This is why few people go hunting with pistols.

I found this interesting site on information on rifle injuries:

http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/basics/pmrb.html

Admittedly this site does not cover expanding ammunition, but the huge
variation in rifle rounds - especially between rounds of the same
design but different manufacture, such as between NATO rounds of US
manufacture and those of German manufacture - seems to me likely to
dwarf differences in bullet shape.  The site doesn't cover pistol
rounds in detail, but says of the Soviet manufacture AK-47 ammunition
that "holes in organs were similar to those caused by a non-hollow-
point handgun bullet. The average uncomplicated thigh wound was about
what one would expect from a low-powered handgun".

I do think there are pistol rounds where the round itself is likely to
be less lethal:  the .22 short pistol round, for example.  Then again,
air rifle rounds are probably even less likely to be lethal.

Warren J. Dew