Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sci-Fi Science

Mystery Australian Big Cat Shot 421

Posted by Zonk
from the fortean-indeed dept.
mugley writes "The Sunday Herald Sun is running a story about the shooting of a large cat, believed to be a leopard or puma, in the Gippsland region of Victoria, Australia. Alien big cats have long been a topic of interest for cryptozoologists (and more recently, Lance Henriksen and his credit card) - is this the first real evidence of their existence?" From the article: "Mike Williams, a representative of the Centre for Fortean Zoology, a body that researches mysterious or out-of-place animals, said he believed it was concrete evidence that big cats are on the loose in Australia. Hundreds of sightings have been reported over the years and a leaked government document revealed 59 sightings had been reported in Gippsland between 1998 and 2001. The cats are said to be descendants of animals that either escaped from zoos or circuses or were released by US airmen who kept them as mascots while stationed in Australia in World War II. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mystery Australian Big Cat Shot

Comments Filter:
  • I don't know exactly what this is, but I can't see a Cat in it, in fact it doesn't look like anything, and the picture quality isn't the best either.
    • The cat's head was shot off by the hunter. The tail was removed and sent to a lab.
      • Look mate, here in Australia, we don't just hunt, we obliterate. Not like you sissy Americans who use semi-automatic. Nope, here Down Under we use sticks of dynamite shoved on to the end of tied-down car shocks. A quick nick with the knife, and its more than shrimp on the barbie tonight, mate!

        Oh yeah, and as for that tail, mate. We didn't send that to scientists. Pesky lot, always telling us not to rape the kangaroos. Na, we fed the tail to our kids. Makes 'em grow up strong and peculiar, in proper

    • by mattjb0010 (724744) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @03:28AM (#13749465) Homepage
      I don't know exactly what this is, but I can't see a Cat in it

      I can see Jesus in it. How much do you think I'll get on eBay for it?
    • That's becuase, which you'd know if you read the article, it's head was blown clean off. A big, black, sleek, furry thing 4 legs and a tail is what the picture shows. What else could it be?

      At any rate, the guy kept the tail as proof, so its a pretty safe bet the picture isn't some hoax.
    • Why sure it is. If you've ever played with a cat and dangled it upside down, they look just like that! (minus the maimed head, of course) My cat loves being upside down - but he's wierd and likes to lay on his back, too - something most cats hate...
      • Re:That's a Cat? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ozmanjusri (601766) <aussie_bob@NOspaM.hotmail.com> on Sunday October 09, 2005 @04:13AM (#13749588) Journal
        Why sure it is. If you've ever played with a cat and dangled it upside down, they look just like that!

        I haven't done that - I'm too interested in keeping the skin on my hands and forearms.

        I think you're right about it being a cat though. It's proportions are similar to a domestic animal, and the hunter has been careful to put the carcass in the foreground where it will appear large compared to reference objects like the motorcycle in the background.
        I've shot feral cats in the north of WA which were much larger than domestic cats - bigger than foxes in the same area and comparable in size to a small to medium dog. They tended to be a fairly uniform brindle colour, but every so often you'd see a ginger or black cat.

        I think this is mostly a scam. The guy has shot a large feral cat, played with perspectives in the photo to make it look bigger, and will dine out on the tabloid news media for a few days until the DNA evidence shows he's shot a wild felis cattus.
      • by modecx (130548)
        Indeed, I have a flame point siamese (a mutt, but that's what the vet calls him), he's always on his back, in some weird pose. It's pretty funny, because he often sleeps with all fours pointed straight up. Every siamese I've known acted contrary to most other cats. He also goes nuts for lettuce. Like I said... Weird.
  • by ferrellcat (691126) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @03:27AM (#13749462)
    LETS KILL IT!!!
    • Gee, let me think...

      * Introduced Species, check
      * Predatory behaviour, check
      * Running unchecked in the Australian bush, check

      Considering how much damage smaller introduced animals (cats, dogs, rats, mice, rabbits, foxes, cane toads, et al) have done to our wildlife, do we really want much larger ones running around unchecked?
      I'd say not - the real question is how this guy managed to have a gun, given our mega tight gun laws :D

      • by The Fanta Menace (607612) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @04:29AM (#13749634) Homepage
        Gee, let me think...
        * Introduced Species, check
        * Predatory behaviour, check
        * Running unchecked in the Australian bush, check

        That describes most Australian farmers.

      • I'd say not - the real question is how this guy managed to have a gun, given our mega tight gun laws :D

        Our laws are not so tight as to make it very difficult to have a gun. It's the type of gun where difficulties can be wildly different. You can own guns such as shotguns, rifles and pistols, but there are limitations on round capacity and various responsibilities for different types. If you want a pistol (even semi auto), you have to join a gun club and attend meets and shoots at least a certain number of t
        • In the Northern Territory however, I think you could indeed blow that pussy to bits with the weapon of your choice, short of a fully automatic. I think they can still own the likes of AK-47's (limited to semi) and Colt AR-15's. But I could be wrong about that. I don't keep up with NT that much.

          I could totally see an AR-15 being legal - who'd ban a varmint gun?

      • ...but what if they like chasing down and eating Red Kangaroos?

        Even some of the native species kind of run amok in Australia.

        If it's a large, top-level predator with a relatively slow birthrate, it'll be a bit easier to take care of than, say, dingos, if it starts going after too many sheep or koalas instead.

        But, then again, Aussie is having problems with camels and donkeys, too...

      • Considering how much damage smaller introduced animals (cats, dogs, rats, mice, rabbits, foxes, cane toads, et al) have done to our wildlife, do we really want much larger ones running around unchecked?

        Some extinct Australian creatures, like the Tasmanian Tiger, would probably include humans in your list.

        Seth
    • by Create an Account (841457) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @04:06AM (#13749576)
      Then, I know, I'll cut off its TAIL!

      Hmm, what about the rest of the carcass? Hey, I'll throw it away!

      What was this guy thinking? He kills a rare "urban myth" creature (one he had never seen in 50 years hunting the outback), proving the claims of hundreds of farmers (whether he knew it or not), and the best plan he can come up with is 'keep the tail - throw out the rest'? He was hunting deer, right? He had to have some plan to carry the deer out of the wild, right?

      Can you imagine the scene when he came back into town?

      "Hey, see this black rope?"
      "Yeah?"
      "It's part of a gigantic cat I shot while I was hunting!"
      "Yeah?" (Sceptically)
      "Yeah!" (Brandishes tail) "Look, It was coming right at me!"
      "Yeah. Right"
      "No, REALLY..."
      • the best plan he can come up with is 'keep the tail - throw out the rest'?

        I agree. It is pretty suspect, along also with the photo.

        I would have kept parts of the head. Jaw bone and teeth would have been good. I doubt the head exploded into nothingness. I have seen images of terrorists shot in the head and neck with .50 cal machine gun fire and the result has always been head still attached but ripped appart (still obviously human head), or head blown off (and still obviously human head), respectively.

        What w
        • have seen images of terrorists shot in the head and neck with .50 cal machine gun fire and the result has always been head still attached but ripped appart

          What range? Bullets lose energy over distance, and the main benefit of a .50 over a .30-06 is range. At extreme range, it's powerful, but not at the level you're thinking of. Yeah, there were probably bits of head left, but if it was a cat vs. hunting rifle at 100M range, i'd be looking for a set of ears, if anything.

          /meow.

        • by (H)elix1 (231155) <slashdot.helix@nOSPaM.gmail.com> on Sunday October 09, 2005 @10:26AM (#13750396) Homepage Journal
          What was this guy shooting? 105mm Howitzer?

          I can believe the damage. I grew up hunting in North Dakota, and packed a 30-06 for many years. Came across a coyote, was relatively close, and took a shot when it was running away with ammo I used for elk/moose. The damage took the head off in a similar fashion, but I was shooting from behind rather than the thing charging me. Most shots hitting the body won't cause that type of damage! Granted, the insides are a mess - but in 22 years of hunting, every one in the group was stunned (and making cracks about using explosive rounds).
      • by squidinkcalligraphy (558677) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @05:17AM (#13749714)
        Absolutely suspect, yes, but deer are pests here in the land of Oz, and professional hunters are paid to kill them per scalp (or some other such body part). So no plan to pull the deer back home was necessary.
    • How could this person possibly kill such a magnificent creature and discard its body without ever finding out what it tasted like?
  • by Mister Transistor (259842) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @03:28AM (#13749463) Journal
    "It was comin' right for us!"

  • Which Big Cat? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by animeshpathak (873597) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @03:30AM (#13749474) Homepage
    "... believed to be a leopard or puma..."

    How does one confuse a leopard [google.com] with a puma [google.com], especially when the animal in question is not running, but lying dead in front of you?
    Or maybe they are talking about mysterious out-of-place big cats that alternate between two shapes :-?

    -A
  • Are we sure these aren't kittens of something even bigger?
  • Why (Score:5, Interesting)

    by $exyNerdie (683214) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @03:31AM (#13749478) Homepage Journal
    The retired engineer said he lugged the cat back to his camp, but put the carcass into the river after removing the tail and photographing it.

    Why oh why?

  • by SQLz (564901) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @03:34AM (#13749483) Homepage Journal
    The best part of the article is this when the hunter says, "The predator charged in his direction." He's obviously been watching too much South Park. I be t the cat was running in the opposite direction and he yelled "Look out, its coming right for us", and shot it.
  • Hm summary sun (Score:5, Informative)

    by FidelCatsro (861135) <fidelcatsro&gmail,com> on Sunday October 09, 2005 @03:42AM (#13749503) Journal
    " this the first real evidence of their existence?"
    No , not at all . There have been numerous examples found over the years . As the article says
    "Hundreds of sightings have been reported over the years and a leaked government document revealed 59 sightings had been reported in Gippsland between 1998 and 2001.
     
    The cats are said to be descendants of animals that either escaped from zoos or circuses or were released by US airmen who kept them as mascots while stationed in Australia in World War II."
    What is interesting is the cats origin , Is it a pure puma or has it interbred with other escaped cats in the bush
    • No , not at all . There have been numerous examples found over the years . As the article says

      "Hundreds of sightings have been reported over the years and a leaked government document revealed 59 sightings had been reported in Gippsland between 1998 and 2001.

      The cats are said to be descendants of animals that either escaped from zoos or circuses or were released by US airmen who kept them as mascots while stationed in Australia in World War II."

      Oh and because it's in a government report

    • " this the first real evidence of their existence?" No , not at all . There have been numerous examples found over the years . As the article says

      "Hundreds of sightings have been reported over the years and a leaked government document revealed 59 sightings had been reported in Gippsland between 1998 and 2001.

      Sightings != evidence

      Read any tabloid - there are "documented sightings" of everything from the Loch Ness Monster to Bat Boy. Someone swears they saw something. Big deal.

      • Sightings are evidence , how reliable they are is another matter . Several large cats have been caught on film and the films have been confirmed as genuine IE: not a fake , and the size of the animal has been shown to be considerably larger than a house cat or wild cat .

        This is not like UFO sightings , which can normally be explained as a weather balloon or ball lighting etc. .
        It is rather easy to identify a large black cat attacking a larger farm animal .Sure there will be a few people mistaken but I) woul
  • Ob quote (Score:5, Funny)

    by feyhunde (700477) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @03:50AM (#13749525)
    A Puma Ate my baby!
  • This hunter is bold man. Kzinti [wikipedia.org] won't forigive killing their recon and hanging his body in such humiliating manner.
  • I'm sorry, but.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Pudusplat (574705)
    Ok, this situation is hilarious. In Australia I suppose its not only ok but ENCOURAGED by the media to be a crazy redneck shooting random wild animals? I guess they have a history of roughing it and theres dangerous animals a-plenty, but still that culture seems a little bit whacked out. Just look how happy that crazy redneck in the picture is.

    I guess that at least its extremely funny, if a bit strange and creepy.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Australian culture doesn't promote this sort of activity, this man kept the fact that he killed this animal secret for a while and didn't want publiccity for it (Read TFA)
      You should think carefully before making audacious statements like that.
      Steve Erwin does not equal one of our assets. (that wanker)
      I should add that in Australia we don't exactly 'rough it' you might note that we have the highest number of cities in the top 10 most liveable cities in the world according to The Economist.

      ViceVirtue (teamqqp
      • Re:I'm sorry, but.. (Score:3, Informative)

        by Shanep (68243)
        Steve Erwin does not equal one of our assets. (that wanker)

        Yes, I long for the day when Steve becomes croc lunch. He is a fucktard of the highest order. And Russel Crowe is NOT Australian. He is a New Zealander.

        I should add that in Australia we don't exactly 'rough it' you might note that we have the highest number of cities in the top 10 most liveable cities in the world according to The Economist.

        We are also just as educated as the USA. In fact, I've seen stats from various sources that show Australians a
    • Re:I'm sorry, but.. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Diag (711760)
      "In Australia I suppose its not only ok but ENCOURAGED by the media to be a crazy redneck shooting random wild animals?"

      Well, yes the media will promote anything wacky, but is it any different in any other western country?

      On the other hand, the culling of any non-native species, such as wild cats, that kill birds and disrupt the food supply of native predators, is generally encouraged. Many people here would even like to see domestic cats eradicated.
    • I guess they have a history of roughing it and theres dangerous animals a-plenty

      Time you read the Dummy's Guide to Australia (part 1) [ladymisstree.com] and part 2 [ladymisstree.com].
      • One thing to note about that one (I just read it) is that she's from Melbourne. Though most people don't realise this but Australia is a *very* big country and people in different parts of Australia have different accents, language nuances, and they act differently, just like in America or England.
        • Though most people don't realise this but Australia is a *very* big country and people in different parts of Australia have different accents, language nuances, and they act differently, just like in America or England

          Yes, it's a big country, but of course most of the people are in a few big cities, with much less time to diverge in accent and lifestyle than in American, and of course good communications. The differences between people in different parts of Australia is much less than the variation across
    • Unfortunatly most of our dangerous animals are snakes or spiders and don't make good hunting. With the possible exception of the dingo x german sheperd we've got running wild around our rural property...
    • Re:I'm sorry, but.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Shanep (68243) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @05:41AM (#13749755) Homepage
      Ok, this situation is hilarious. In Australia I suppose its not only ok but ENCOURAGED by the media to be a crazy redneck shooting random wild animals? I guess they have a history of roughing it and theres dangerous animals a-plenty, but still that culture seems a little bit whacked out. Just look how happy that crazy redneck in the picture is.

      For all you know, this man is a high genius who works for the CSIRO and actually CARES about Australian native animals. You are judging a book by its cover. In fact, this man is a retired engineer. What makes him a "redneck"? A beard? A gun? Warm clothing? A hunter? Are you a fucking American? If so, guess what, your president fits this description nicely. At least this guy has not also put thousands of innocent humans to death.

      Wild predators in an environment where they do not belong, do MASSIVE damage to native animals which are not in any way equiped with natural means of defence. Those native animals BECOME DECIMATED. Even wild cats from domestic bloodlines become larger killing machines. Rabbits, horses, pigs, cats and dogs have all caused massive damage to Australian native animals, to the point of extinction. We even have wild camels roaming about, but thankfully their softer padded feet do much less damage than those of horses.

      A very intelligent electroncs engineer I once worked with, had a job on the side bow hunting ferral animals for New South Wales Parks and Wildlife. Bow hunting being prefered in national parks for people specifically allowed to cull these problem animals.

      You are ignorant to somehow just cast judgement on this man because he has killed what you describe as "random wild animals". If this is indeed a "big cat" and it was obvious to him, then on moral grounds he SHOULD SHOOT IT. That is no "random" animal. I say this as a conservationist and vegetarian (moral reasons) of more than 20 years.
  • I won't beleive anything 'till you bring me a faeces sample, and not just the faeces of someone who's seen this mystery animal!
  • by nihilogos (87025) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @04:01AM (#13749562)
    For those who aren't familiar with it, is one of the trashiest "newspapers" around. And the Centre for Fortean Zoology [cfz.org.uk]'s whose mission statement is "At the beginning of the 21st Century monsters still roam the remote, and sometimes not so remote, corners of our planet. It is our job to search for them."

    News for nuts.

  • by Bitsy Boffin (110334) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @04:01AM (#13749563) Homepage
    this seems fishy to me. Firstly, the hunter reckons his bullet blew the feline's head apart, and from the photo it really looks like there is NOTHING left of it... would a RIFLE bullet really do that much damage? I mean, if it was a shot gun, fired into it's face, then yea, but a rifle fired from behind, passing in behind the ear and THEN blowing the head apart?

    Secondly, rather than pack out this surely important find, he cuts off the tail and just takes that with him, I mean, if it were me, I'd be carrying the whole carcass out, or at least marking and burying it so they can come back and retrieve it. It's not even like he had to carry it, he could have strapped it on like a backpack (I believe this is how hunters carry deer), tied it on the back of the bike, or even towed it behind the bike wrapped in a tarpaulin or something, it was dead anyway not like he could have hurt it any more than it was.

    Thirdly, the fact that he shot the thing, when it was not a threat (he says it turned away, side on), with a rifle. I've never shot a gun, rifle or otherwise, but I imagine that with a rifle there needs to be some aiming involved, he was calm enough to aim, and fire the gun, making a clean shot into the cats head... if a big cat graced my path, I think I'd be frozen stiff, hoping like hell it won't be interested in me, not tracking it with the sights on my rifle.

    I dunno, this whole thing just seems really fishy to me. Not that there couldn't be a few big cats roaming the Australian countryside, but have a sneaking suspicion that this was not one of them.
    • Aiming rifles (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Create an Account (841457) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @04:27AM (#13749630)
      Yeah, there is a good bit of aiming involved. This guy was apparently an experienced hunter, and some of those guys areinsanely good shots. When it turned away, it was actually a harder shot because it was moving side to side (bearing change) rather than coming straight at him.

      He said he hit it behind the shoulder (which is about where you would aim) and the bullet destroyed the head. This implies either that the cat was running away from him, or the bullet was deflected inside the cat's body (probably by a bone or rib.)

      Finally, if he was using hollow points (which is more likely in some rifles than in others) it could very easily blow the majority of the head off. So, maybe.
      That paper's not very credible, though, and lots of people are saying the big cats are just myths, and he did throw away his best evidence. So, maybe not.

      Interesting idea, either way.
  • Alien cats (Score:5, Funny)

    by future assassin (639396) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @04:02AM (#13749564) Homepage
    Man I though they meant mysterious out-of-space. Got all excited there thinking I'd have to say "I for one welcome our new Mysterious Out-Of-Space Alien cat overlords".

    mysterious or out-of-place animals, said he believed it was concrete evidence

  • by The Famous Druid (89404) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @04:07AM (#13749577)
    1. The Herald Sun is ... how should I put this... not renowned for its high standards of journalistic integrity.

    2. A hunter shoots a 'mythical beast', takes a photograph of the carcass (but not a very good photo, it's hard to tell WTF it is he's shot) and then only bothers to bring back the tail?
    Oh Puh-lease !

    3. I've been hiking in places which really have big cats (national parks in South America) and the paw-prints and 'traces' (puma sh#t) are everywhere. If there was a population of big cats in Gippsland, we'd know about it.

  • by Create an Account (841457) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @04:12AM (#13749586)
    ...or were released by US airmen who kept them as mascots while stationed in Australia in World War II.

    Am I the only American to feel vaguely embarassed to once again be seen as the descendant of a bunch of knuckleheaded yokels?

    "Oh, sure, we may have released gigantic carnivores in your backyard, but we sure saved everyone's asses in WWII."
  • On Meeting Big Cats (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Quirk (36086) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @04:15AM (#13749597) Homepage Journal
    I live on the west coast, (Vancouver, B.C.). I've done alot of what might be termed extreme wilderness hiking. I hike in winter where there are few, if any trails. I carry a k-bar as a utility, but otherwise no weapons. I always have a rugged SLR (Pentax MX is the best wilderness camera I've used).

    I've hiked in areas with cougars, ( nagali is the indian word it means Lord of the Forest ). I've been tracked by cats. They're big kitties and like all cats they're curious. I've woken in winter and exited my tent to find paw prints up along side the perimeter of the tent, the cat having walked quietly all around the tent. I've backtracked to find a fresh kill twenty minutes back from where I had been and had not noticed a cat ( they smell like big wet dogs ).

    You can talk with multitudes of wilderness pros and not meet one who has actually seen a big cat. They're next to invisible. I've meet 5. One lay a few feet from me in the dark outside the door of an 8 x 8 cabin an airborne colonel had flown into a wilderness area. When I open the door to go for wood ( the cabin had a small firebox ), the single candle that lit the cabin cast a long light out the door and onto the cat. I was carrying an axe. I dropped the axe, flew backwards into the cabin and slammed the door ( adrenelin can give you superpowers), while the cat tore out of the underbrush and sprinted into the treeline.

    In my meetings with cats only once did I know I was approached as prey. Cougars don't see us as prey.

    In the hundred or so years records have been kept there have only been a handfull of lethal attacks by big cats on the west coast. Interestingly nearly all have been on Vancouver Island. The theory goes that the thick sala underbrush allows the cats to get close. Almost all attacks have been by sick or old cats.

    Wild animals met with knowledge and respect can usually be party to an incredible experince (my north american exceptions would be grizzilies, polar bears and wolverines, oh and skunks). I've gotten close up and personal with wolves (very rare experience, beautiful, beautiful animals) and countless bears (most black, one grizzily and her cub very very scary).

    On the other hand there is near unanimous agreement that pound for pound a leopard is the most dangerous lethal killer on the planet.

  • Red Vs Blue (Score:2, Funny)

    by Shook18 (878947)
    "It looks like a big cat..." "What like a Puma?" "Yeah there ya go."
  • "The bullet entered behind the cat's shoulder and blew its head off, he said."

      That's a lot of firepower. What was he hunting? Is this a normal hunting rifle? (I reckon some of the /. readers are hunters who can elaborate)
  • by riflemann (190895) <riflemann@bb.cac[ ].net ['tii' in gap]> on Sunday October 09, 2005 @04:40AM (#13749655)
    Here in the Netherlands, the country's media was recently abuzz for a while over news of a puma living in the forests here. Given the tiny nation here is not much bigger than tasmania and with 16m people, it got locals rather nervous:

    details at expatica [expatica.com]
    • Here in the Netherlands, the country's media was recently abuzz for a while over news of a puma living in the forests here. Given the tiny nation here is not much bigger than tasmania and with 16m people, it got locals rather nervous:

      Yes, and based on hearsay and a few vague photographs that could be of a normal housecat, hunting parties were formed, and a special organisation was funded to research the puma and bring it in. The story lasted all Summer. Nobody found the puma. But new photographs were defi

  • by HvitRavn (813950) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @06:00AM (#13749784)

    The rugged paws and the thick furry tail coupled with black color makes it fairly obvious that this is a puma. This is also plausible because pumas has a history of being used as pets.

    I can't see anything wrong with the picture. You can see both the left and right front paws, and a severed head. The anatomy seems correct to me.

    The head looks like that because when you're hunting, you don't use full metal jacket, nor do you usually use hollow point. You use very heavy and expanding lead-point bullets.

    These bullets has a thin metal jacket and a hole in the nose, and they are filled with lead. On impact with an animal the nose of the bullet expands voilently and creates something similar to an explosion (way more powerful than any hollow point). As mentioned, the lead makes these bullets very heavy and they sport a massive amount of energy. They are made for two purposes: to kill and to kill as fast as possible.

    After the impact and immediate expansion the bullet remains partly intact and can easily travel through the rest of the animal, creating even more damage.

    Here's a picture of one of the most commonly used lead points, Nosler Partition: http://www.nosler.com/images/partition.jpeg [nosler.com].

    Lead point bullets creates awfully lot of damage to tissue, and it doesn't surprise me one bit that the head was so severed. Even with a .222/3/* you can get that kind damage with the right bullet. I assume the hunter was using .308 or .30-06 or larger ammunition, which can effectively cut a small sized human in two when hit from the right angle with the right bullet.

    If you watch hunting videos where they have zoomed in on the animals they shoot, you can often see a thick red mist at the impact of the bullet. In most cases, if it was a hit in the lung/heart region, the animals drops dead on the spot. That would *never* have happened with FMJ or hollow point.

    • complete and utter BS
      there is a reason the 223 is being dropped by the military
      it is a caliber that mostly wounds, not kills
      the most powerful load available for a 223 can do no such thing, and even a 30-06 would have a tough time severing a spinal cord AND blowing the rest of the head off
      need we be reminded that cats have amazingly powerful necks because it is after all, their killing weapon. the claws just help them hang on...
      and the "varmint" videos the other guy posted..well, a prairie dog is the s
    • Lead point bullets creates awfully lot of damage to tissue, and it doesn't surprise me one bit that the head was so severed. Even with a .222/3/* you can get that kind damage with the right bullet. I assume the hunter was using .308 or .30-06 or larger ammunition, which can effectively cut a small sized human in two when hit from the right angle with the right bullet.

      Bullshit. Complete, utter bullshit, and the kind that most geeks won't know a damn thing about and simply assume to be correct.

      Soft

Sentient plasmoids are a gas.

Working...