> At 10:27 AM 6/25/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
This is an interesting point. As part of my BSc, I took a course in Planetary
Geology, which included something on impact cratering experiments performed
using hyper velocity guns. Turns out the US military wanted to
test these as possible infantry weapons, but after trying them, rejected
the idea as they were too efficient at killing. (Shock waves from impact
pretty much mushed the insides of the dead pigs they tried them on).
The idea is that a wounded enemy has a bigger morale and logistical effect
than a dead one.
> At 1:41 PM -0400 6/25/02, John Sowerby wrote:
That is an issue with hunting as well. If you are shooting a deer, you don't
want the meat turned to hamburger. You want a good solid clean kill that drops
the animal quick (minimal suffering, minimal running off and having to track
it by the blood trail). If you are shooting a coyote, then you don't much care
for how the meat is as long as you kill it fast. The wisest hunters have
rounds they have tailored for the game they are hunting and tuned to their
rifles and habits. A guy that shoots Elk
There is so much room for fiddling with the variables in ballistics
that it is actually a very complex art/science that many people
practice with aplomb and minimal education. (learned by doing mostly, those
that didn't do something dumb and double charge a round and blow their face
off that is...)