At 09:19 PM 4/4/02 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > -- >On 4 Apr 2002 at 14:55, John Young QUOTED: >> "The current-issue 62gr 5.56mm (223) round, especially when >> fired from the short-barreled, M-4 carbine, is proving itself >> (once again) to be woefully inadequate as man stopper. >> Engagements at all ranges are requiring multiple, solid hits >> to permanently bring down enemy soldiers. > >Rapid fire weapons are generally not designed to bring down people >in one hit.
Yes, disabling someone drains the enemy's resources more than killing them outright. But generally when firing at someone the idea is to stop them from doing what they're doing, ASAP. This is done by reducing the hydraulic supply to their brain, the nervous system itself being too small a target to aim for. >Military weapons are generally not designed to kill quickly. A >badly wounded man who takes a long time dying is a much bigger >drain on your enemy's resources. True for snipers, but if you're being shot at and have inadequate cover, I bet your opinion would change. >An ideal low fire rate weapon will in a single shot so badly wound >a man that he will soon die, unless he receives very prompt and >expert medical attention, but does not "drop" him. So he gets another chance to kill you. Or drop another mortar down the tube. Or boobytrap his body. Not a good plan. >An ideal rapid fire weapon will reliably cause serious and often >permanent injury in a single hit, but will typically take several >hits to so badly wound a man that he will shortly die. Only you won't hit him twice because your muzzle is flying around. The soldiers who are complaining should be able to obtain AKs (7.62mm), which use a more penetrating projectile, fairly easily over there :-)
