How is 5.56 considered grossly inadequate and inhumane for hunting deer, and yet is simultaneously heralded as a good intermediate cartridge designed for warfare (i.e. killing humans)?
I mean after all humans are a larger "big game" animal than a deer is, so what's up with this contradictory standard?
Can't have it both ways baka.
>>27930775
>humans are larger than deer
What?
it isn't, and it isn't.
bullet design is king.
The deer aren't shooting back (usually).
>>27930775
because wild animals lb for lb are much tougher than human beings
>>27930779
White tail deer anyway, obviously a lot of mule deer will weigh more than us.
Don't be autistic, the average adult male (which is what you're going to be shooting with a 5.56) is going to be bigger than your average deer Bubba spots in the woods while hunting.
>>27930775
Have you ever even seen a deer?
>>27930775
Until we have a large sample size test where 100s of deer are precisely shot in various locations randomly selected around vital areas, with the control group being 5.56 and the experimental groups being various larger caliber bullets...
Then everyone claiming 5.56 is either not enough or just as good as a larger round is basing their data on anecdotal evidence. I've heard enough either way from hunters way more experienced than I am to not know who to believe.
I'll let others figure out how to actually collect that data as humanely as possible.
>>27930775
Humans are more comparable to pigs, which is why we use pig carcasses for terminal ballistics research.
Also, War=/=Hunting.
Because a combination of fudd game management and retards who will buy fucking M855 or M193 and shoot it out of a 14.5" barrel at 300 yards at a deer
Modern 5.56/.223 bullets in the 65gr plus territory are fine for White tails
>>27930775
War doesn't need to be humane. That's the difference. The 5.56 has put enough people in the grave now I can't imagine why anybody would still be questioning its lethality.
>>27930775
You can't shoot a deer with a 5.56 round because the deer do not have two other deer to come drag their wounded battle buddy to a deer medic.
Deer do not have deer medics, deer are not ready for war.
Their does are not ready for human dick.
>>27930775
Because you want a quick kill while hunting, but a mission kill is ok (maybe even preferable) in combat.
Just so long as the enemy cannot continue shooting back or operating equipment, you have succeeded in putting them out of action. A grievous wound will also waste a lot more enemy resources with medical facilities
>>27931069
>A grievous wound will also waste a lot more enemy resources with medical facilities
So, it begins.
>>27931080
Did you know that the MP40 used 9mm which was designed by the nazis to only wound enemy soldiers because killing him would only take away one soldier but a wounded soldier a;spneeds two strecher bearers to carry him to hospital? Man dad told me so and he's in the army.
>>27930990
https://www.gaybeast.com/movie/29856/deer_fucks_man
Maybe not, but our asses are ready for buck dick.
>>27931148
Why the fuck did I open that link?
>>27931148
Does seem to be evolving too.
>>27930775
Combat weapons have to balance logistical and training concerns against power. 5.56 packages well and doesn't kick, so it's great for training a ton of tards to shoot and carry a lot of it.
In recreational hunting, your goal should be a clean kill, and you should only shoot once, so the solution skews towards a more powerful cartridge.
>>27931170
Everybody opens the link. The question is, did you masturbate to the link?
>>27931148
I am genuinely baffled as to the logistics required to
>1. get a deer indoors
>2. making it calm enough to not kill everything in the room
>3. making it dtf
>4. making it dtf a human male
>>27930990
>You can't shoot a deer with a 5.56 round because the deer do not have two other deer to come drag their wounded battle buddy to a deer medic.
you just made me imagine a whole deer infantry division, with deer campaign hospitals and deer machineguns nest and deer trenches. Thank you
>>27931080
do you not understand how it works?. Hurnting a soldier will drag away valuable resources because you have to actually take care of them and drag them out of the battlefield, its military doctrine, what the fuck is there to discuss.
>>27931245
>Deer can into war.
>Still will jump blindly into the path of a jeep on the road.
>How is 5.56 considered grossly inadequate and inhumane for hunting deer
The people who make the rules are not always the most knowledgeable individuals on the planet.
>>27931265
The 5.56 wasn't invented to "wound" though. It was designed to kill, in a smaller cartridge so a soldier could carry more ammo and a lighter weapon.
>>27931276
It's more accurate to say that the people that make the rules have to write them for the lowest common denominator.
>>27931269
>will jump blindly into the path of a jeep on the road.
its asymmetric warfare dude, they trinna make the public opinion see them as the victims. In fact they're worst than bolshevists
>>27930775
have you ever seen a deer?
>>27931282
what it was invented for its not important tho. WHat matters is how it is utilized and that's how military uses it.
>>27930822
because war is about stopping people and hurting them. guess why we use FMJ and not HP rounds, genius. other than that, 5.56 is perfectly fine for the deer you talking about.
>>27931282
Of course it was designed to kill, but the fact remains that a significant percentage of those shot with it lived, and in some cases remained combat effective. Marines in Iraq frequently reported requiring multiple hits to bring down hostiles
>>27931300
Around Cervidae, aim for the vertebrae.
>>27930775
Because when we're hunting we want to achieve a one shot kill that is quick and humane.
In warfare we want to carry more ammo, while maintaining a balance between lethality and weight.
>>27931326
>>27930775
Hunting legally is all about overkill so game dies quickly as possible, your question is on false pretenses, hunting laws are not based on what works or is possible of killing game its based on the concern of many different stakeholders.
>>27931245
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9G6WCsfoow
>>27930775
Because I'm allowed to shoot a Dune Coon four times in the head and carry around a bunch of full, thirty round mags while doing it but if I do the same thing with a deer I'll get fucked by the game warden. Sorry, I'd rather have 300 rounds on my person and have it barely slow me down.
Oh and
>.223/5.56
>not good for deer
Winchester Ranger hollow points.
1: A hunter usually gets to go home if they run out of ammunition, no need to worry about cumulative weight.
2: A hunter has more incentive to make sure their target dies quickly, not just be too injured to shoot back.
3: A hunter doesn't have to worry about their ammunition being suitable for use in their friend's LMG.
4: A hunter gets to choose their ammunition, and doesn't have to buy it by the ton.
Every shot fired by a hunter should kill.
99% of shots fired by soldiers are intended to suppress. Carrying twice as much ammo is worth the drop in lethality.
Also 5.56 at 3-600m is still going to make Mr Taliban go home and feel bad about his day.
some states have laws that a .22 can't be used to hunt deer. It was supposed to be for rim fire cartridges. 5.56 Nato is .223, therefore a .22. Laws haven't caught up to technology yet.
>>27931177
Nigger what the fuck
>check'd
>>27930775
The whole argument doesn't make any sense, I have had a teacher who was actually from Iran and consequently served in their military, laugh about how ridiculous using an AR for hunting is, nothing left of the animal blah blah blah. When we responded that typical hunting rifles fire a larger more powerful round he just went back to the main topic instead of trying to argue about it.
tl;dr original argument is dumb
Because it doesn't particularly matter if the home invader/enemy soldier/whatever poor fucker messed with you suffers before they die.
In hunting an instantaneous (or as close to it as possible) death is preferred out of respect for the animal.
In combat you don't really give a shit, because that asshole was trying to kill you right before you popped him.
If he writhes on the ground and bleeds out over the course of ten minutes, that's just too fucking bad.
>using overpressured .22 on anything other than small game/varmints
hunting and combat are completely different scenarios
>>27930775
When you shoot a human soldier, you want him wounded and out of the fight, but not dead. That is both more humane as it saves lives and more effective, as several enemy soldiers are immediately pulled out of the fight to keep the wounded one alive and the enemy then has to spend resources nursing the wounded soldier back to health.
With a deer, you want it killed quickly and painlessly. You do not want it to get out of there to suffer for hours, days or weeks before finally succumbing to its wounds.
>>27930775
5.56 wasn't chosen because it was any more humane than another cartridge, it was chosen because it has a flat trajectory out to 200 yards, which is important for the role it's used in.
>>27930775
I've been asking myself this very question recently as someone who sold his AR but is looking for another one for self defense. I understand the benefits of higher ammo capacity in a war theater, but I don't see myself in a war theater unless something goes seriously wrong.
I want whatever animal I shoot at, 4 legged or otherwise, to fucking DIE. Regardless of what drugs or adrenaline it may be hopped up on. 5.56 may be adequate for this task, it may not.
>dont use an assault rifle to hunt deer you'll blow the deer to bits!
Coming from an uneducated lirbul bitch it makes sense, but do hunters really say this? Do they know anything about guns?
>>27933866
>>27933866
>want him wounded and out of the fight, but not dead
This is the dumbest shit in the world and there's always some dumbass spewing it. Not once has a soldier in battle thought, "I'm gonna wound the shit out of that guy." We don't issue TASERs and bean bag rounds. In a battle you want every last motherfucker looking in your direction to die before you and your people do.
The 5.56 was chosen because it delivered the same (most tests show better) terminal effectiveness in a much lighter package with much less recoil.
>>27933956
>>27933866
the benefit of 5.56 over other cartridges was that you can carry a fuckload of it, and it was deemed to have good enough casualty (both mortal and non-mortal wounds). It's that simple.
Same reasoning that 5.45 was developed. It's a matter of carrying more ammo, while being "good enough." That's it, there's no higher reasoning than that.
>>27933956
To be fair the whole SS109\M855 fucked up the fragmentation that made 5.56 better because they wanted to pop through Soviet helmets and body armor easier. But still lighter weight, kills motherfuckers the same as M80 ball. Neither expand\ fragment\ yaw within the body with any real reliability, especially when shooting at malnourished mud farmers.
Would I be okay using 5.56 for boar hunting? I can bring a variety of other guns if I have to, but I really want to use my ar.
>>27933972
Look at the actual comparisons between M193 and M80 when the 5.56 was adopted. Most decided that M193 had better wounding characteristics. As stated, M855 was a bad idea for the wars we've been fighting.
>>27930775
>Be out hunting with my 5.56mm AR.
>See a deer
>Dial in an take the shot.
>The deer starts spurting blood and falls down wounded.
>I wait.
>Two of the deer's buddies jump out of the woods to try and drag him back to safety.
>I shoot them too.
>3 easy kills.
5.56mm superior hunting round.
>>27934010
Yeah, take good shots and use the heaviest, toughest bullets you can stabilize. it's the one thing I actually like that green-tip shit for, doesn't expand or anything but it makes it to what matters.
>>27931313
Pretty sure the military uses it to shoot people, not really caring if they're killed or just incapacitated.
>>27930775
It was adopted because its a good caliber for suppressive fire. Then there's the whole "designed to wound" thing which I know a lot of you think isn't true but think about it... a varmint/small game caliber for war? Why would that be so? Because it takes 3 guys out if the fight if one has to be dragged off.
Back to the suppressive fire thing, they wanted something a soldier could carry a lot of, and with the help of his squad lay a lot of lead down range until support could come in and mop up the mess. That support could be artillery, bombs, mortars, the designated marksmen, or the machine gunners.
This is just my studied opinion, but if you run an AR for shtf you dun goofd. You're not going to have a full squad with marksmen and support. You have to be the marksman or machine gunner. The AK is designed to be a machine gunner type platform, as its adequate enough to turn cover into concealment and if it hits someone it actually kills them. The accurized battle rifle platforms are meant to be DMR roles, pick your poison.
The caliber CAN kill, but as far as being specifically designed to kill humans and penetrate common barriers, nope. There's plenty of better options and I feel if you go with that you're making yourself anemic.
>>27931119
Now ask your dad to explain how the Nazis developed a round 19 years before Nazis existed.
>>27930837
You might be able to do it by body weight and kinetic energy delivered. So above a certain mass you aim for a certain level of transferred kinetic energy, etc.
A deer can have a mass of up to 6 times that of a human, so it seems reasonable to assume that a round designed to kill such a smaller target might not be sufficient. Just thinking in text form
>>27933916
55 gr hornady sp's in a 223 or 556 case running hot should work great for this if my experience with coyotes translates to this application.
>>27934058
>7.62x39 is more lethal than 5.56x45
Top Kek, enjoy your ice pick overpenetrating wound profiles and rainbow trajectory, I'll take my fragmentation, tumbling and flat trajectory.
>>27934058
>studied opinion
That's a weird way to spell fuddlore bullshit.
Human's aren't heavily muscled\boned creatures, a varmint caliber actually has better terminal effects within the 6-10 inches of torso that house all that important shit that keeps you moving while larger heavier bullets punch through. SS109 was a bad idea that fucked this up to an extent.
It doesn't do a great job of penetrating barriers, but that isn't a requirement. Good terminal effects, flat trajectory, low recoil, light weight were the requirements and it does a great job at these.
>2015
>People still unironically perpetuating the "designed to wound" and "it'll take two of his buddies to drag him off" myths.
>>27931326
suicide bomber deer dude
>>27931269
Wait until they figure out vests.
>deer jumps in road
>truck hits deer
>earth shattering kaboom
>>27934095
The Bulgarian and Czech surplus I have don't icepick. I have shot coyotes between 50 and 150 with those rounds and 30 cal entrance with a ragged 2-3 inch exit. Font half hits lay coyotes out. Also shot a badger at about 15 feet and the belly split open but that may be neither here nor there.
>>27934095
>rainbow trajectory
I'm not going to grab an AK unless engagement range is guaranteed within 1-200 yards. You can never guarantee something like that considering combat is unpredictable, so I opt for .308 as my go-to caliber. You're a .223fag arguing against a .308ubermensch, you really don't have an argument bud ;-)
But I stand by 7.62x39 being better than .223 in close engagements, the .223s performance/penetration/ability to fragment drops past a certain range. I'd rather just adjust my sights to make up for bullet drop, but again my main argument is making your targets cover turn into concealment. You haven't been in or seen combat if you think .223 is a good platform for an individual, in reality people hide behind brick walls, cars, dumpsters, etc, all of which the AK can penetrate and the AR cannot.
Lore, rumor, etc.
You can kill deer dead with stone arrowheads just as well as steel arrowheads but guess which one people will say is inhumane? And godforbid someone uses a caliber I don't like.
That goes for everything else.... You like Fords? I'm a Chevy guy and you can go to hell! Don't question muh favorite companies 15 billion bailout and pay no mind to how they discontinue engines that don't break down frequently enough!
Welcome to America.
>>27934147
>people hide behind brick walls, cars, dumpsters, etc
And they are then combat ineffective. This would be the time for you to do the move part of shoot and move.
>>27930775
Hunting and war are two different activities. Hunters really don't have to worry about ammo; they (should) take one well placed shot and go home, so it makes sense to have a larger, more lethal round to maximize the effectiveness of that one shot. Meanwhile soldiers are generally far more concerned about meeting the threat with as much lead as possible, so it's better to have something that's lighter and allows you to carry more of it.
>>27934234
Or you could just do the shoot part.
>>27934265
So after already giving up half of your ammo to weight, you want to use the rest to fire blindly into random objects.
Good choices.
>>27934027
Alright, cool, I knew it would probably be okay but I thought I would ask the professionals on /k/ before I actually went.
We want the animal to die fast and... humanely.
If we're shooting a person, we don't give a fuck how long it takes them to die; having a sucking wound or shrapnel dispersed in your chest cavity will incapacitate you until you are dead.
>>27934310
Oh, and I should add, I don't think 5.56 is inhumane for durr. I have read about some great hunting rounds, but I have fuck all for experience with them.
>>27930775
when you shoot a deer on a hunt, you're shooting one precise shot to minimize suffering.
when you're shooting at people in a war, you're shooting thousands of rounds in an attempt to kill the other guy in whatever way you can.
these two scenarios are a little different, and thus they call for different rounds fired from different guns.
>>27934164
It's really not, these things are measurable. Even cars are, you can look at specs and reported issuss. If your argument is "but the military uses it! it's not designed to wound that's fuddlore but I don't have any facts to prove it is!" Then you're like a guy saying "ferd is a best!" But if you're going over known performance issues and potential scenarios you have a legitimate argument that should be considered. I know I'm being a dick and that's because trolling is a part of the internet, irl once emotions get involved a discussion becomes and argument and everybody talks, nobody listens. I'm asking you to override that and actually consider my argument, then dismiss or accept it after actually contemplating what I'm saying.
>>27934234
You're going to waste a lot of ammo trying to hit a silhouette of half a dudes head and part of his hands at range under stress. Me, 2 rounds through the general location and he's either going to be screaming his last breaths or fuck off and run.
>>27934283
You generally know where the person is, and if you're behind something and a round cuts through it like butter what are you going to do?
>>27934333
>>27934342
I get that you've constructed a situation you can jerk off to while fingering the chamber on your m14 like they took from grandpa back in nam and left him with a mattel pea shooter, or whatever, but you don't know shit about shit.
>>27934095
Google '7.62x39 sst gel'. Ice picking isn't a problem any more. And people are still reporting getting through hogs shoulders with the ammo.
Not weighing in on which is the more lethal round, because how the hell do you compile empirical evidence on that one?
As for the hunting deer, I'd probably still choose a bonded .224 bullet over a .310 SST just because I don't want my dentist to have to pull a sliver of lead out of my molar.
>>27933929
This thread is the complete opposite of that.
>>27933956
>>27933972
I see that I expressed myself poorly. It's not that it's "designed to wound", it's that it's designed with "a wound is fine too" in mind. This is in contrast with hunting, where a wound is not fine too.
>>27934380
>don't know shit
If I can hit shit with an AK what reason do I have to take an AR? Why do you legitimately think a .22 has a leg up on a .30?
>>27930986
>The 5.56 has put enough people in the grave now I can't imagine why anybody would still be questioning its lethality.
Has 5.56 ever been used in a war where the enemy was wearing modern body armor, and the enemy was a well trained conventional force with medics, dedicated medivacs, and field hospitals to treat the men? Most people we have fought against have been half naked peasants who leave their comrades to bleed to death when hit.
>>27930775
It's not designed to kill outright, and it wounds easier.
Deer rounds need to kill quickly, with one shot. 5.56 does not accomplish this.
>>27934570
You've at least attempted to read the posts in this thread, but your comprehension seems to be limited to bigger number= more better.
As posted earlier. Better terminal effects, less recoil, less weight, better accuracy if we're going x39 vs. 5.56 ( some of these can vary with aftermarket, but all my comparisons have been ball v. ball) , better trajectory for easier hits at unknown range.
Also lol at hitting things with an ak (this part is mostly a joke).We can debate platforms, but AR wins that hands down, so no need to try.
If you want to limit your issues by spending a shitload of money on boutique bullets for your slavshit, go ahead. It can then almost catch up with milsurp ball loads and guves up that whole barrier penetration thing you have a hard on for when the super expanding hunting bullet flattens immediately.
>the "designed to wound" meme still isn't dead
Thank you for reminding me why I browse this place for entertainment, rather than actual advice.
is .950 JDJ a 'humane' round for white-tails?
>>27934615
Underrated
5.56 is anemic when placed poorly at longer distances and through cover. It really shines for versatility between close combat and mid range engagements, due to flat trajectory and low recoil while still being a respectable cartridge. If the US were to ever fight an enemy with real body armor, 5.56 would be out of the question compared to a .308 round as long as both had steel penetrators.
>>27930775
because humans take more than one round of 5.56 and in war, more shots are better
With deer, you only get one
>>27931192
I didn't open it but I masturbated
>>27930775
Because it's a varmint caliber and people are varmints.
>>27930775
bow is fine for dear
>All this talk about shooting deer.
>Wanting to kill an endangered species.
>>27931314
I was just reading about some of this stuff lately.
Apparently the reason no one uses hollowpoints is because Hitler complained about .303 british rounds wounding potential being excessively cruel being developed into hollowpoints when they were using large bore safari/elephant guns not .303 and someone signed a treaty against expanding bullets, apparently the U.S. Army was trying to test 7.62 match ammo and have to argue with supply about hollow points or semi hollow points being expanding ammo or not to get anything other than FMJ because nobody wants to be a war criminal.
>>27936357
I wish deer were endangered. Then maybe the dumb bastards would stop running out in front of my car every other night.
>>27936378
>He thinks we don't use HP rounds in the military.
>Because people are going to check the bodies to see if we used the "Nicer" round on durka durka.
>>27936407
Really guy? You're sitting on a PC waiting on a 4chan thread you can post a reaction gif you been waiting to use for who knows how long and you choose to be sarcastic and racist over a benign comment about testing ammunition and not the "5.56 doesn't have a rainbow arc" comment a few above?
>>27936438
I guess my aim must be off.
>walk innawoods
>see him
>he weights 331 pounds
>he's looking at you
>he's going to charge into you, at over 40 mph, and throw you 10 feet in the air
>he's going to kill you for sport and hang your head up on his carving tree
>OP actually wants to use anything less than 4000 joules on him
>>27930775
>le "5.56 is inadequate for medium game" fuddlore
>>27930775
I don't know about in humane or inadequate (sounds like a fudd told you this) I do know up to about 110 meter they'll tumble which destroys meat (generally something you want to save) and at ranges above 160 meters a non vital shot won't even kill a person much less a wild beast. For Whitetail use at least a .243 or .270
>>27937398
stop hunting with green tip
>>27937412
Well I don't hunt with .223 at all, I use a 30-06
How about this: people decide whichever caliber they use for hunting and shooting.
This thread is as stupid as a thread arguing how vanilla ice cream is superior to chocolate.
>/k/ommandos will argue I'm wrong
>>27937495
BRB, going innawoods to wound a bunch of deer with my Glock 19
>>27936438
Saying durka durka is not racist you deluded degenerate
>>27937495
Guaranteed replies
>>27937495
Fuck off reddit
>>27935105
>shoot deer
>scrape ground venison off the ground and trees
>>27937608
>>27934132
Now I can imagine deer yelling allahu snackbar
>>27930775
>humans are a larger "big game" animal than a deer is
Confirmed for no gunz no huntz faggot.
>>27937358
"Inadequate for medium game" != "Incapable of ever killing medium game". /k/, why must your debates end up in the extremes?
For whitetail and hogs, if you can place your round behind the shoulder or behind the ear respectively, the .223 will do the job.
If your aim is not a true as you would like though, the animal is likely to run, regardless of caliber choice. Then, all other things being equal, the general consensus is that the wider wound channel from a wider bullet bleeds faster, resulting in a quicker death.
Also, if the AR-15 hadn't achieved it's amazing market penetration and bolt-actions were still the norm, I don't think we'd have this thread 2 times a week. Not when the .243, .260 Rem, 7mm-08, and even the old workhorse .308 exist with their much more generous powder charges.
>>27936448
You'll get there one day.
Entire thread is bait anyway, people are still taking deer with smooth bore black powder muskets and ball. If someone can do it with something that antiquated .223 should be too easy.
>>27931148
i ain't clicking that shit nigga
>>27935682
Still better than 7.62x39
You know what you can hunt deer with? 7.62x39 or 300BLK you know, reall bullets, bullets that are not .22 caliber. You know what makes a really good large game rifle? A full size rifle round, i.e. A battle rifle. .223 is only even marginally acceptable at full auto center of mass pumping about 5 rounds into the vitals. Otherwise, it just doesn't have enough mass. The only reason why people like it so much is that so many millitarys use it, despite the fact they all know those bullets suck. We never should have abandoned .308
>>27931322
That's why they give you 30 round mags of 5.56, not 5 or 10. Hell, just hunt with intermediate cartridges and take multiple shots.
>>27937495
ayy
>>27930775
good 5.56 will reliably take down deer, the military issue stuff sucks for hunting (mostly)
>>27937959
What is velocity you gigantic retard?
High velocity and light has the kinetic energy, it just needs to effectively transfer it.
>>27937398
How do you think a 69 grain hollow point .223 would do on white tail?
>>27933186
Actually, you want to make an instantaneous or quick kill when hunting because the meat tastes better that way.
An animal that dies slowly or in pain has tougher meat, because it converts a significant amount of muscular glycogen into lactic acid while writhing around and freaking out.
5.56/.223 is inadequate due to it being illegal to hunt with .22 caliber in different states/counties and also due to it not retaining energy well enough at longer ranges.
At close enough range you can kill deer with a bow, pistol, etc. so that stands. That being said, it is not in any way superior to larger calibers.
>muh ammo cost
>muh recoil
>blahblahblah
If you are a proper hunter and can shoot decently a box of 20 will last you 3+ years even if you bag the limit each year. I don't know about you, but $30-40 per 3 years isn't a lot of money to me nor is it a big deal to experience a round or two of recoil in a short period of time from most "deer calibers". If it is then you should probably find another hobby that is better suited to poor and/or anemic people.
Because a semi-auto/burst fire .300 Win Mag would really hurt after a while. In combat, you need to put multiple effective rounds on target. When hunting, you want to preserve the most meat possible. So you could pump 5-10 rds in a 6 point, but you ruined most of what you were trying to do. In combat, a 30-06 or 270 would get the job done, but not quickly.
It's kinda like how to drive on muddy powerlines, you'd want a 4wd truck, but if you were taking the interstate to your favorite vacation spot, you'd prolly take the economical sedan.
Mission dictates, gear, bro.
>>27938428
I think depending on distance it will either cause excessive damage to the meat (which meat is the thing you want) or cause insufficient damage to the vital causing the animal to suffer.
Go 7,62 or go home
5.56/.223 is a .22 caliber.
Laws here state that I can not shoot large game with a .22 caliber bullet.
>>27938428
Does fine.
>>27930775
not killing someone will usually cause the enemy to expend more resources keeping them alive.
7,62 often means 20 round magazines and more weight.
I have used hk g3 (7,62) and hk 416 (5,56) in the military and i would rather have more ammo and 30 round mags.
>>27931269
The deer where I am know how to use crosswalks. They're learning
>>27930775
believe it or not, but infantry rounds arent about killing. Its only about hitting, what happens after the ennemy is hit matters very little in the grand scheme of war. Thats why we are going towards smaller calibers so you can carry more and who cares if they kill less. A deer on the other hand needs to drop on the spot. Youll notice that when you want a human to drop on the spot (like a police sniper in hostage situation) they dont use 556 ball.
>>27931080
A grievous wound will also waste a lot of yummy meat.
Everyone here is wrong...
Stop thinking one shot one kill, infantry combat has not worked like that in over half a century.
You want infantry soldiers to carry a lot of ammunition, so they can suppress an enemy easily and then call indirect fire on them or flank them (if no IDF or CAS is available).
Carrying around a large, heavy round is not good for the above strategy.
>>27930775
Most of the answers about wounding over killing are retarded...
When we go to war we shoot people dead...
Anti-hunters and fudds for the most part see it this way.
>.223 = tiny bullet which isn't my .243 or 30-06 or 357 wheelen.... therefore because I see it as a varmint round I don't think you should kill durr with it.
>From Anti-gunners perspective it has 900% to do with the fact that its the same round that an AR15 uses... therefor it belongs in a scurry salt raifu and will Obliterate an entire deer as you go full auto on it.
5.56 being a military round means lighter ammo which = more ammo for soldiers for same weight.
Anything and everything else is pure speculation and old wives tales.
In my state it's perfectly legal to hunt white-tail with a .45 ACP, and I have done so.
The reason people recommend a heavier round against white-tail deer is because you want to drop the motherfucker right where he stands. This is true for two reasons: one, a hunter typically gives a shit about being humane to the game he harvests, whereas a soldier typically does not give a fuck if the guy trying to kill him feels lots of pain when he gets shot. Secondly, if a deer manages to run any distance after getting shot, tracking them down can be a royal pain in the goddamned ass.
>>27934019
under-rated post
GEE IT'S ALMOST LIKE HUMANS AND DEER HAVE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PHYSIOLOGY OR SOMETHING
BACK TO REDDIT
>>27941654
ball ammo
>>27941862
go dissect a deer. From the liver up were almost the same. Differences are superficial.
>>27933972
>Same reasoning that 5.45 was developed.
5.45 was developed to tame automatic fire.
