Thanks a bunch for the info. I saw a wonderful comparison, (on the US "History Channel"?) using a static test, whereby several rounds fired from a Spitfire-type .303 into whatever fuselage, then a few shells from a cannon of an Me-109. The .303s might have been fired as single shots, and this must have been unrealistic, but because of the very slow rate, there was no comparison, unless, as stated by you all, the multiple .303 rounds at a normal rate of fire converged at the right distance. The purpose was to check results up close with the television camera, and the film quality was good.
Hell, as for shooting REAL guns, nowadays, so much land has been bought up around this city and the countryside (real estate speculators), that there is no place outside where you can shoot a basic .22 rifle at a cantaloupe or orange floating down a small river
. Inside rifle ranges, we can choose between various, exciting, paper targets (but can rent a few pistols in there, and cheap)
.
Some Soviet rounds (23mm?) were fired, on a very different program, from whatever type of ground or aircraft gun at a 90 degree angle into the outside skin, just below the canopy of a Soviet Su-25 "Frogfoot". What a superb flying machine! The rounds were fired from about 20 feet away, and possibly due to the armour around the c0ckp1t, the bursts looked something like a very tiny paper bag of flour thrown against a brick wall. I wish we could drop some (lots) inflight
. I could not see from the faded old Soviet film that there were any metal fragments.