Re: M16 similarities re. Iraq & VN

KP wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message ...
>> The 7.62 NATO is a much
>> more "convincing" round at almost any range than the 5.56
>> NATO.  One of the problems encountered in these kinds of
>> comparisons, is that there isn't a lot of consistent and
>> reproducible data on what happens to humans hit with a
given
>> type of munition at a given range might be.  There are
lots
>> of opinions but very little hard data.
>
> Yep, the difficulties in obtaining controlled test data in
the first
> place (much less reproducing it) are just about
insurmountable.
> Cooperative test subjects are nearly impossible to find
and different
> human beings can be extremely unpredictable in their
responses to the
> same stimuli :-/
>
Yep.  '-}

> However, in my original post, for a proper comparison, I
should have
> compared two true ball rounds (55gr M193 vs 147gr M59) or
two rounds
> with penetrators (62gr M855 vs 163gr M61).  Instead I
mixed apples
> and oranges in an attempt to give 5.56 a break on the wind
drift
> issue.
>
Agreed.

> I should also have clarified that my point was not
necessarily
> terminal effects on a human target, but simple penetration
at mid to
> long ranges. That is one testable area where the abilities
of 5.56 vs
> 7.62 differ remarkably.
>
Agreed.

> There is truth in the statements "7.62 turns 5.56 cover
into
> concealment" and "With 7.62 I don't need to see my target,
I only
> need to see what it's hiding behind."

I like that one.  May I use it sometime?

Snark
<a longtime user of the M21 and the "Pig" for the reasons
cited abo>