Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (51847)	10/14/2002 6:22:28 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>It was designed to wound<< Seems pretty lethal to me.

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (51847)	10/14/2002 10:51:57 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

A 223 caliber rifle will not kill a deer at 200 yards unless someone fires an exceedingly lucky shot because its too light of a round. I personally witnessed a .223 round fired at approx 200 yards bring down a deer. We were on the rifle range during basic training and this deer came leaping out of the woodline across the firing lane of the guy next to me.. He couldn't resist taking the shot and hit it in the neck... Knocked it down almost immediately, netting the guy an Article 15 (for abusing the wildlife), and, according to rumour, provided a great source of venison steaks for the company drill sergeants. But I would concur that at such ranges it is relatively underpowered compared to higher velocity/mass calibers. But the whole purpose to the .223 round was to create a small bullet propelled at a high velocity which would "tumble" and create nasty cavitation wounds upon impact, thus incompacitating the target almost immediately... Some of the problems with .308 rounds were that they were so overpowered, they would over-penetrate, going through the target, but causing less tissue damage (thus more chance of the target being able to fire back).. Or so the theory apparently goes... But you're also right about wounding someone requiring two people to take care of them... Hawk