Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/24/2002 6:56:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/24/2002 7:01:34 PM EDT by DigDug]
He stated that the round was developed to wound, not kill so the other soldiers would have to help the wounded. I can not believe this IDIOT! Are the people in the ATF this stupid? The Idiots name is Joe Vince. Former ATF Ballistics Chief. No wonder he is former....
Link Posted: 10/24/2002 7:09:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DigDug: He stated that the round was developed to wound, not kill so the other soldiers would have to help the wounded.
View Quote
There are a number of idiots on this board who say the same thing.....
Link Posted: 10/24/2002 7:10:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/24/2002 7:13:21 PM EDT
Dig - I really hate to tell you this, but... The design philosophy behind the .223 round WAS to create a lightweight round that would increase the carryable amount of ammunition in the basic loadout, and with increased potential for grievious wounding rather than actual killing power. (fmr) Agent Vince is correct in the assessment that the .223 would wound rather than kill, and the lightweight bullet would likely tumble within the body increasing wounding and decreasing the possibility of creating "walking wounded" - tying up a minimum of three enemy soldiers for each one wounded (two to carry the man, one for his kit.) This does NOT discount the fact that the .223 can kill - it has been used to great effect for exactly that. Any bullet, with enough power and properly placed, will kill. In the 'high volume' tactica used on the common battlefield, the intent is to tie up as many files as possible when shooting - and causing THREE rifles to be taken out of battle for just ONE wound is not a bad thing - militarily speaking. The .223 was developed as the .222 (IIRC) was evaluated for use and found lacking. Reference "The Complete AR-15/M-16 Sourcebook" by Duncan Long, available from Paladin Press and better bookstores. FFZ
Link Posted: 10/24/2002 7:14:26 PM EDT
Dig - I really hate to tell you this, but... The design philosophy behind the .223 round WAS to create a lightweight round that would increase the carryable amount of ammunition in the basic loadout, and with increased potential for grievious wounding rather than actual killing power. (fmr) Agent Vince is correct in the assessment that the .223 would wound rather than kill, and the lightweight bullet would likely tumble within the body increasing wounding and decreasing the possibility of creating "walking wounded" - tying up a minimum of three enemy soldiers for each one wounded (two to carry the man, one for his kit.) This does NOT discount the fact that the .223 can kill - it has been used to great effect for exactly that. Any bullet, with enough power and properly placed, will kill. In the 'high volume' tactic used on the common battlefield, the intent is to tie up as many files as possible when shooting - and causing THREE rifles to be taken out of battle for just ONE wound is not a bad thing - militarily speaking. The .223 was developed as the .222 (IIRC) was evaluated for use and found lacking. Reference "The Complete AR-15/M-16 Sourcebook" by Duncan Long, available from Paladin Press and better bookstores. FFZ
Link Posted: 10/24/2002 7:17:02 PM EDT
Freefire, Please provide some proof of this theory about wounding. I have heard this bantered around some, and no one has ever come up with any proof of this theory. Lighter weight ammo is one thing, but the wounding is just total BS. Prove me wrong.
Link Posted: 10/24/2002 7:18:16 PM EDT
Yeah, I heard some female "expert" say their was an AR chambered in 30.06. Also, does it bother anyone else how they call the round 2-2-3 instead of 2-23? That just bugs me.
Link Posted: 10/24/2002 7:31:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/24/2002 7:38:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FreeFireZone: Dig - I really hate to tell you this, but... The design philosophy behind the .223 round WAS to create a lightweight round that would increase the carryable amount of ammunition in the basic loadout, and with increased potential for grievious wounding rather than actual killing power. (fmr) Agent Vince is correct in the assessment that the .223 would wound rather than kill, and the lightweight bullet would likely tumble within the body increasing wounding and decreasing the possibility of creating "walking wounded" - tying up a minimum of three enemy soldiers for each one wounded (two to carry the man, one for his kit.) This does NOT discount the fact that the .223 can kill - it has been used to great effect for exactly that. Any bullet, with enough power and properly placed, will kill. In the 'high volume' tactic used on the common battlefield, the intent is to tie up as many files as possible when shooting - and causing THREE rifles to be taken out of battle for just ONE wound is not a bad thing - militarily speaking. The .223 was developed as the .222 (IIRC) was evaluated for use and found lacking. Reference "The Complete AR-15/M-16 Sourcebook" by Duncan Long, available from Paladin Press and better bookstores. FFZ
View Quote
Somebody with as many posts as me and STILL hasn't read the ammo FAQ. [url]www.ammo-oracle.com[/url]
Link Posted: 10/24/2002 7:43:39 PM EDT
I haven't just been sleeping when posting....I actually do read this stuff. Wounding.....BS.
Link Posted: 10/24/2002 7:53:58 PM EDT
From what I glean, the 5.56mm was adopted SOLELY for it's smaller size, lighter weight, and cheaper manufacture. This allows the soldier to carry a lighter rifle and alot more ammunition than previous weapons. I've heard the "designed to wound and not kill" business alot and it strikes me soley as a rationalization for carrying a less potent firearm (the 7.62 kurtz round [for the stg-44] faced similar opposition).
Link Posted: 10/24/2002 7:59:29 PM EDT
Another big reason a smaller round was chosen was because a 7.62mm full auto rifle is all but uncontrollable. I can't even imagine firing an M14 on full auto...you wouldn't be able to hit anything with it. I'd like to shoot a SAW sometime though [:D]
Top Top