10-12-2013, 04:38 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2013, 04:41 PM by KentuckyBuddha.)
My experience is a comically tiny sample size for sure. However, it begs the question, if it is so rare for things like that to happen...why did the Soviets change up their projectiles when they saw those wounds in Vietnam over a massive sample?
Anecdotal evidence on tiny game or tiny people can give results that can skew perceptions as well. Shoot an unarmored normal sized military age male in the chest with a .223, it is quite likely to give him a bad day. It isn't my preference to have in a fight (which I certainly hope more than anything shall never happen again). But, it will work well enough by any reasonable standard, which is why NATO has kept it this long and why the Soviet's went to the AK 74 when they saw the wounds it caused I imagine.
I have sent that same video to several people also Montana, it is definitely informative.
Anecdotal evidence on tiny game or tiny people can give results that can skew perceptions as well. Shoot an unarmored normal sized military age male in the chest with a .223, it is quite likely to give him a bad day. It isn't my preference to have in a fight (which I certainly hope more than anything shall never happen again). But, it will work well enough by any reasonable standard, which is why NATO has kept it this long and why the Soviet's went to the AK 74 when they saw the wounds it caused I imagine.
I have sent that same video to several people also Montana, it is definitely informative.