Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Using the rifle suited to the previous war?
Message-ID: <1991Jan22.022749.22901@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 22 Jan 91 02:27:49 GMT
References: <1991Jan5.021828.27885@cbnews.att.com> <1991Jan17.054422.29971@cbnews.att.com> <1991Jan19.040239.4164@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 17
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
In article <1991Jan19.040239.4164@cbnews.att.com> andy@Theory.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>only one, the size of the permanent cavity (assuming sufficient
>depth) actually seems to correlate with damage in humans.

I'd be curious to know how this can be reconciled with the early combat
results of the AR-15.  Its original dinosaur-killing reputation came from
combat experience in Vietnam, not from Army PR.  Most everyone who used it
reported fantastic lethality from a small-caliber weapon that would be
expected to produce quite a small permanent cavity.

(Then the Army "improved" it into the M-16, and the reports changed.)
-- 
If the Space Shuttle was the answer,   | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
what was the question?                 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry