Sweet........all wood and chrome and you can take it with you when you go squirrel hunting. Sheesh, what's not to like about that??
releventchair. I don't think anyone could throw enough stones to inflict the type of wound a .223 remington can cause. If a military round was used, and the sole purpose of a military round is to cause massive damage in order to take the enemy out, the damage would be a lot greater. You get three spaces on the mass shooting bingo card for bringing up "your gun paranoia"
But here we are, 7 people got up this morning to go to work and earn a living from a job. 8 people will not be returning to their family tonite for dinner, or breakfast tomorrow, or going to their kids graduation, birthday parties, weddings or whatever. Oh well,
Military rounds have decreased in size. Geneva code or something.
Many are skinned with hard material or have steel inserts inside.
These cause through and through holes within effective range. Vs dumping energy inside. Or expanding or fragmenting to cause more shock and internal damage. I've tested a few (heavier caliber) both full metal jacket and hollowpoint on earth berms (sorry , I don't run ballistic gelatin tests) and dug them out. And have plenty on reserve. Performance as far as trauma...Poorer with the military rounds .
If you study hunting bullets vs military ones you'll note similar performances.
I use certain bullets for hunting for performance reasons.
Military ammo (much standard anyways) works fine for range work where poking holes in paper is the performance minimum standard.
Yes military rounds can yaw beyond stabilized flight. That ups trauma ,while accuracy suffers. But any bullet just about when the football spiral type barrel rifling effect fades will yaw as well.
A .223 vs my pet deer calibers and rounds.....I'd rather take a hit from a .223.
They are a light bullet and hard construction in military configuration for considering not the best for deer/ thin skinned game , but with proper bullets they can be used. Accuracy is paramount though. Too light for my preference. My goal is not to just poke a hole through a critter. Though a sharp stick through the right area will subdue most anything. Through the wrong area , not so much. Not unlike a non expanding bullet just passing through. History has demonstrated the effectiveness of sticks/staffs. Broken bones including skulls. With more intuitive use surpassing guns. Test the theory with someone not familiar with a gun or staff. Which do they wield intuitively? And how much force can the staff develop even in slight hands?
Military style rounds can work on tough wild hogs for example , as they are not as soft as "normal" hunting rounds.
Shot accuracy will still matter of course. And be ready to avoid a disgruntled hog if t finds you and you only poked a hole in a nonvital area.
They have thier own code...
.223 Vs a four pound rock to the head? Depends on velocity and accuracy.
