Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!erb1!osnome!hunting
From: stsien@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Sherman Tsien)
Newsgroups: rec.hunting
Subject: Re: .223 to little for deer, but big enough for people?
Message-ID: <584@erb1.engr.wisc.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 91 12:09:46 GMT
References: <544@erb1.engr.wisc.edu> <549@erb1.engr.wisc.edu> <579@erb1.engr.wisc.edu>
Sender: news@erb1.engr.wisc.edu
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 15
Approved: hunting@osnome.che.wisc.edu

This is off the subject of hunting, but the thread of the discussion
has led me to wonder about the accuracy of recent statements to the
effect that "... the purpose of a military round is to wound, not
kill."  Is this right ?  I understand the "economics" argument, but it
seems to me that a dead enemy is better than a live one who might come
back at you some day.  Isn't "if we can't have 'killed', then we'll
settle for 'wounded', and the .223 is just fine for that." a better
statement ?

[Moderator's note:  This is getting a bit off the subject of hunting.
Please answer this through email and/or post it to sci.military or
rec.guns. tjr] 

-sherman tsien  
stsien@s.psych.uiuc.edu