Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!erb1!osnome!hunting
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.hunting
Subject: Re: .223 to little for deer, but big enough for people?
Message-ID: <579@erb1.engr.wisc.edu>
Date: 22 Apr 91 12:10:32 GMT
References: <544@erb1.engr.wisc.edu> <549@erb1.engr.wisc.edu>
Sender: news@erb1.engr.wisc.edu
Distribution: world
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Lines: 25
Approved: hunting@osnome.che.wisc.edu


In article <549@erb1.engr.wisc.edu> plains!umn-cs!LOCAL!wytten@uunet.UU.NET (Dale Wyttenbach) writes:
>
>I think it's because the ballistics of a 5.56mm M-16 round and a
>.223 cal are different...the M-16 round is specially designed to
>tumble and roll on impact, wreaking havoc on flesh.  

Urban legend. The M16 round and the commercial .223 rounds differ in
that the commercial round has an expanding bullet while the military
round does not. They are ballistically identical. The military round
is not designed to tumble. Both rounds *will* tumble if they strike
bone though the commercial round likely will deform so much that
the tumbling will go unnoticed in the wound channel.

>Folklore says that when the 5.56mm rounds don't tumble, the M-16 has
>very little stopping power compared to the Soviet AK-47, which fires a
>7.62mm round.  Incidentally, the U.S. M-60 machine gun (Rambo fired
>one from the hip, you remember :-) also uses a 7.62mm round, but I
>think it's backed with a lot more powder.

Indeed the 7.62 Nato round, identical to the .308 Winchester civilian
round, is much more powerful than the Soviet AKM round. Ballistically
the AKM round is about equivalent to a 30-30.

Gary