Actually, and not to be cruel about it - a trained unit is taught to not drop out of line of battle to help a wounded soldier. If there is no medic available, then you help after the battle. Words of advice from medics and docs I've worked with: the best thing you can do is stop whatever it is wounding and killing your soldiers. That is kill the enemy.A solid copper bullet at high speed sounds like a shoot through just waiting to happen.
Actually, in war, a wounded enemy soldier is better than a dead one. He's out of the fight, at least one and possibly two other soldiers will have to care for and evac him, so they're out of the fight, and he will still use up food, water, and medical supplies. All due to mandated FMJ ammo.
Keep in mind his quote was that a rifle is better for killing over a pistol.
That’s some circuitous logic there. Sure it will use some extra resources temporarily, but you didn’t eliminate an enemy combatant. Mandated inferior ammo is ridiculous. Why not mandate that all ammo transports the enemy to a magic place with unicorns and lollipops ?A solid copper bullet at high speed sounds like a shoot through just waiting to happen.
Actually, in war, a wounded enemy soldier is better than a dead one. He's out of the fight, at least one and possibly two other soldiers will have to care for and evac him, so they're out of the fight, and he will still use up food, water, and medical supplies. All due to mandated FMJ ammo.
Upon reflection KF, I will adjust my posted comment here to a rifle is perhaps "better", rather than best. I do respect your point of view. I will note that there are some pistols (revolvers too) that have a higher energy rating, larger "hole" making ability than some modern battle rifles. Maybe as others have alluded to, the situation with current military rounds contributes to the survival rate. I don't know, could be.
It’s all about shot placement.
