These are the kind of articles that make me question "the science"
And I quote. "There have been abundant studies to show that the average, “fragmentation threshold” occurs at an impact velocity (not muzzle velocity) of approximately 2,260 feet per second, or Mach 2.0, which is the certainly the case for most centerfire rifles. Above that limit, fragmentation is very likely, and below it, fragmentation is rare."
The "science" has an approximate number of 2260 fps....not 2000 or 2500 but 2260. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of statistics will know that it takes a lot of samples to get a number that specific.
Then the "science" ignores the type of bullet used so are we to assume every type of lead core bullet acts this way? Partition bullets, exposed lead tip, ballistic tip, hollow points, round nose, spitzer, etc etc?
The .30/30 with a 170 gr bullet has a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps and only 1900 fps at 100 yards so it should "rarely fragment".
I shoot a .308. With the 165 gr bullet I get a MV of 2500 fps and at 200 yards it has dropped to 2100 fps...well under 2260 fps
Another "red flag" was the statement:
"It’s an irrefutable, scientific fact that lead ammunition is prone to fragmentation, sometimes into literally hundreds of tiny, even microscopic pieces, often losing up to 40 percent of their mass in tiny fragments that can stray up to 18 inches from the wound channel."
Really!!??? Fragments up to 18" from the wound channel.
I could go on, but you see my point. Just like our little friend the Chinese bug, "science " can be twisted to tell what ever story the writer wants to convey.
BTW, thanks for posting the article. It shows why "the science" should be either ignored or questioned by folks with critical thinking skills.