mcb
Member
KE, ME, all related, but inadequate by themselves as models of lethality. I agree with your analysis, but if you notice, marksmanship skills, which lead to better shot placement, are not promoted in the press. Instead what is published promotes the concept that expensive equipment compensates for a fundamental lack of marksmanship skills. Shooting is a skill based activity, not some deterministic game where the end point is based on what you spend.
I agree Slamfire I don't think they will ever have a nice succinct model for lethality. We have good models for internal, external and terminal ballistics (on inanimate objects). But with a living target there are simply too many variables, many of which defy modelling, to ever create a reliable predictive model of lethality. Too many of those variables you would need to know to create an accurate model are unknowns right up till the moment the gun fires.
As for marksmanship skills I think that depend on what "press" your reading. I have read lots of good articles over the years about shooting techniques, reloading techniques, and action/bedding techniques that are all suppose to increase you and/or your firearms accuracy potential. So that depends a lot on what press your reading. That said, the advertisements on the other hand (and many publications are turning into thinly veiled advertisement sold as articles) are all about selling you on the latest and greatest new gun/cartridges that will give you "magical accuracy" with no practice etc etc. Its hard to sell marksmanship so you see few advertisements for it but there are classes if you look for them.