gregz > wrote:

>Robert Klute > wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:11:03 -0600, Michel Boucher
>> > wrote:
>>

-snip-
>>
>> Ture, but it is wrong anyway. The .223 round was chosen because more
>> rounds could be carried by a soldier in the field and it was more likely
>> to cause dehabilitating, but survivalable injury than the .308 NATO or
>> .30-06.
>
>First thing I saw in the army, the m16 exploded a watermelon vs large bore
>slow shot, just made hole.
>
>Survive that.
>

I'll have to call BS on that. I've seen a few folks shot by various
weapons and the M-16 is the one I'd most like [least dislike?] to be
shot by. [especially with military ammo]

I've never shot a watermelon with a shotgun, but I have shot a 2
gallon metal can filled with water with spectacular results. A 223
makes a hole of less than a 1/4" on one side and might tumble before
going out the other-- but the can stays intact.

Not saying you didn't *see* that-- but one of our instructors at Camp
Lejeune blew up a jeep with some 'special ammo' as a demonstration one
day. it was a year later that I found out that the 'special ammo'
was a hell box held by another instructor. One shoots- the other
blows up the jeep. It was a neat trick.

Jim