Another major (presumably terrorist) incident. Now in Manchester.

[Tim]

However, surely in instances where highly-trained marksmen (using rifles with telescopic sights) have sufficient time to zoom in and focus on their target, a leg wound could easily be achieved?

Short answer, no Marco - and if I ever get up to Wrexham (not that far now) I'll explain why

[Marco]

Okies - look forward to it

I've rephrased the question slightly, btw....

Marco.

[walpurgis]

It's not just the difficulty of taking an accurate shot at a smaller target that would be a problem. There's also the need for immediate and decisive action. In a fast moving situation, you can't make judgement calls as to whether a shot should be fatal or not.

I'm not in favour of high velocity weapons in close quarters situations and they are not normally used. A powerful rifle will go straight through a body and maybe even carry on through a wall or two as well, with the possibility of injuring others, even at distance.

[Tim]

A powerful rifle will go straight through a body and maybe even carry on through a wall or two as well, with the possibility of injuring others, even at distance.

Exactly Geoff, happened in Northern Ireland when a shot fired from a 7.62mm SLR over penetrated the target and went through housing walls to kill a child in their room.

[Marco]

Good points (Geoff and Tim), which I fully accept

Marco.

[Macca]

Exactly Geoff, happened in Northern Ireland when a shot fired from a 7.62mm SLR over penetrated the target and went through housing walls to kill a child in their room.

This is one of the reasons why NATO moved to the 5.56 mm round (.22 calibre). The smaller round tumbles inside the body on impact rather than passing straight through.

if the target is standing still long enough then you could realistically aim for a leg shot. That is unlikely to happen in a terrorist incident, though; and if you miss he will be off and running and your chance to take him down may have gone. Why risk it?