[Grimwulff]

Also remember this... i'm pretty sure that I can take a 50BMG in the foot and live... i'll be in pain... but live.



Looking at the average distance that 50BMGs are used at vs the average distance 5.56 NATOs are used at, may shed some light on this situation, since 50BMGs are often used at extremely long range... and eventhough they can carry out and hit targets at extreme distances, even the best shooter will have a hard time hitting a "killing blow" with each round shot.



Please consider all options before comparing 2 different rounds.

 

[Grimwulff]

[quote name='Grimwulff']Also remember this... i'm pretty sure that I can take a 50BMG in the foot and live... i'll be in pain... but live.



Looking at the average distance that 50BMGs are used at vs the average distance 5.56 NATOs are used at, may shed some light on this situation, since 50BMGs are often used at extremely long range... and eventhough they can carry out and hit targets at extreme distances, even the best shooter will have a hard time hitting a "killing blow" with each round shot.



Please consider all options before comparing 2 different rounds.

Considering that the debate is on caliber, how is it not appropriate to discuss two rifle calibers at opposite ends of the spectrum?



You kinda helped make my point though, as you brought up the fact that shot placement is paramount.[/quote]



I'd say, because the comparrison is apples to oranges? That is why.



And I had to state it b/c I thought shot placement was never stated specifically. Thought it was a key point of the arguement.