Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Modern ammunition like the socom issues 5.56 optimized works amazingly well. I have given a few boxes to friends and they have really enjoyed the performance. Typically they get .45 to .50 Cal expansion and complete pass through on deer and hogs. The guys I've talked to who use it on 2 legged vermin love it.
I believe someone already named them as the vz. Anyway...what's the point? I liked g10 are those micarta or g10?. Less oil and sweat discoloration. Had black g10 star burst grips on my Wilson supergrade.
I know it's controversial, there are two valid sides to this argument, and it will never go away; doubters (like those *******s at Snopes) call it a myth, but logic requires that it remain a consideration.
Believe what you will, but l didn't just make all this up:
I can't speak to what the SAS decided to do, nor to a CNN article written by an anonymous Canadian. However, the development of the 5.56 round and the M-16 rifle in US is fairly well documented. What I am interested is anything that came out of that development history that supports the "wound not kill" theory.
I can't speak to what the SAS decided to do, nor to a CNN article written by an anonymous Canadian. However, the development of the 5.56 round and the M-16 rifle in US is fairly well documented. What I am interested is anything that came out of that development history that supports the "wound not kill" theory.
There isn't. It was never the case. If it were, they would not be issuing and developing more and more violently destructive rounds for it. They would not be giving SOCOM a 70gr solid copper hollow-point that expands to .50cal. They would not be using M855A1 which penetrations well and frags out to 600m. They would not be issuing MK318 which was the USMC improved ammo.
ALL SIGNS point to wanting as much lethality as possible.
Some people complain about the caliber. In FMJ, it isn't the best choice, but throw a good round like a bonded softpoint or the TSX series in it, and it performs EXTREMELY well on game up to 4-500# if you have decent shot placement. It's hard to argue with 24-26" of penetration and .50cal expansion!
There isn't. It was never the case. If it were, they would not be issuing and developing more and more violently destructive rounds for it. They would not be giving SOCOM a 70gr solid copper hollow-point that expands to .50cal. They would not be using M855A1 which penetrations well and frags out to 600m. They would not be issuing MK318 which was the USMC improved ammo.
ALL SIGNS point to wanting as much lethality as possible.
Some people complain about the caliber. In FMJ, it isn't the best choice, but throw a good round like a bonded softpoint or the TSX series in it, and it performs EXTREMELY well on game up to 4-500# if you have decent shot placement. It's hard to argue with 24-26" of penetration and .50cal expansion!
You will get no argument from me that new rounds with increased lethality are being developed and used. My question was in response to your statement:
Quote:
because they are designed to wound, not necessarily to kill, under the theory that a wounded soldier takes two more out of the fight to rescue him
You claimed they were designed to wound, not kill. You still haven't supported that statement.
Oops! I beg your pardon. My mistake. I was quoting ChuteTheMall, not you. Sorry about that.
Well and good. The claims and support was just so far off the mark I had not commented on that line of thought until now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.