Re: M16 similarities re. Iraq & VN

[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 :-/

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.

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.

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."