Look my good friend and excellent "father-like figure" who was my Command Sergeant Major a ways back is just as valid if I'm telling what he knows,
as if he is telling what he knows.
I am unsure how many rounds I fired, I don't sit there and count them off like a bafoon.
But back to the main point, is my CSM says, 7.62mm can do this, that's what I said, you say I'm wrong I show you a website that backs it up and now
you attack me?
Who cares about me, my CSM killed plenty of people to damn well know first hand what the 7.62mm round CAN do. Sure it doesn't always tumble, it
needs to hit an item such as bone, because as my source I gave to you said it has 6inches of penetration before the shockwave causes it to tumble.
6inches is USUALLY thicker than most anyone.
Now as for you hunting experiences I have no clue, maybe you just get lucky and your rounds penetrate every time.
But I do find it offensive when I tell of the experiences of people I know and admire, and then they come at me as if that persons experiences are
It doesn't matter if I've shot anyone or not, my CSM has, and that's what the 7.62mm round does, it tumbles.
If you wish to continue to argue a FACT, that I have shown to be a fact in more ways than one, then be my guest, but I believe you are trying to just
prove you are right, more than learn.
I know of someone else who was the same way, he got banned for it....you aren't so crude as he could get, but I'd watch out.
You'd be amazed how fast your emotions can "tumble" out of control when you try to argue a point that you are not necissarily correct on.
However, I'll give you the benifit of the doubt and agree that sure your rounds penetrated the animal in a straight line, no one is saying the 7.62mm
tumbles ALL the time, just that it can under a circumstance of hitting a bone.
And anyone on this forum can clearly see I'm not the one acting like the "encyclopedia". I've proven you wrong in one area, and I told you with
the geology, make the contours of the "face" and you'll see how non-semetric it actually is. You more than enough have the information to do it,
you have a time of day the picture was taken, therefore the angle of the sun, and you can determine the lengths of the shadows, what more do you
Oh and for you knowledge though I am a great shot
Maybe not as good as you, but give me a grenade launcher and it really doesn't matter, since
I'll be in a hole surrounded by concrete and you'll be in the same, shoot through several feet of earth and another several feet of concrete and hit
me and I'll give you a million dollars.
Sniping (which seems to be your preferred way of fighting) is nearly useless on the battle field. It can prove useful in tight spots, it can greatly
help weaken enemy lines, but it can't win the battle. You need force//fire power. Nothing else will prevail.
And you want proof?
How badly did the Japanese lose WW2? Probably lost 10 men for every 1 american they killed.
Now, the Japanese, could usually hit a fly off a horse at 100m and not make it flinch. An american would be lucky to have hit the horse.
Japanese through out the war produced 50,000 crappy machine guns, Americans produced over 5 million. It's not the ability to hit something, but the
ability to kill fast.
A minigun will make short work of a platoon, a snipper, would be lucky to kill 6 before he is blasted out of his hole by a mortar or grenade.
That is why we are in this argument, becaues your philosophy of WHAT weapons are best, is totally backwards.
Japan lost, because their technology was crappy. When they fought an equal enemy (Phillipenes) they kicked @ss (our @ss), but once we got machine
guns and rpgs in there, it was all over.
So see? Sure you know your stuff about guns (I know I said you don't but you do, you just are being bullheaded when I present 2 sources of info, one
valid, the other backing that one up), no one else has been saying you don't know your guns.
But your philosophy on what works, is what we all are telling you is messed up.
Look at history, you'll see why.