-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Terminal effects of 5.56
- Thread starter dmschmidt
- Start date
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
You have lots to learn young grasshopper. Keep readn and do lots of shootn.
There is lots more than just caliber when it comes to terminal ballistics. Another study of ballistics, like internal or external.
You have lots to learn young grasshopper. Keep readn and do lots of shootn.
There is lots more than just caliber when it comes to terminal ballistics. Another study of ballistics, like internal or external.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
Oh, sorry. Any gun, bullet combo will do just as much damage as to its POI as it should.
Oh, sorry. Any gun, bullet combo will do just as much damage as to its POI as it should.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
To expand briefly on montana's point, the damage caused by the 55 grain 5.56 bullet with respect to tumbling was <span style="font-style: italic">after</span> it struck a solid object like a human body, not in the air.
And do a Google or other search on 5.56 terminal ballistics, and you'll find more information than you have time to read.
To expand briefly on montana's point, the damage caused by the 55 grain 5.56 bullet with respect to tumbling was <span style="font-style: italic">after</span> it struck a solid object like a human body, not in the air.
And do a Google or other search on 5.56 terminal ballistics, and you'll find more information than you have time to read.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
So what your saying is that all the ballistics gellatin tests that I have seen are crap, like the wound channels that are straight, I really didn't want to get into a pissin match, but a 69 grain bullet compared to a 168 grainer just can't compare. Ive shot many a deer and I'd never use a .223 on one unless I was assured of a good head shot.
So what your saying is that all the ballistics gellatin tests that I have seen are crap, like the wound channels that are straight, I really didn't want to get into a pissin match, but a 69 grain bullet compared to a 168 grainer just can't compare. Ive shot many a deer and I'd never use a .223 on one unless I was assured of a good head shot.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
Welcome to the Hide!
Fill out your Profile!
When you start hunting Deer with a Full Auto 7.62 let us all know how that works for you, I have whacked pigs here in TEXAS with 75BTHP and none walked far after being hit, .223/5.56 may not be the best choice for hunting, but it works dam well in killing people when shooting Full Auto, and the new 77 grain stuff is working so good I bet M855 will get replaced by it.
Welcome to the Hide!
Fill out your Profile!
When you start hunting Deer with a Full Auto 7.62 let us all know how that works for you, I have whacked pigs here in TEXAS with 75BTHP and none walked far after being hit, .223/5.56 may not be the best choice for hunting, but it works dam well in killing people when shooting Full Auto, and the new 77 grain stuff is working so good I bet M855 will get replaced by it.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
Normally I wouldn't jump in on military ballistics because I'd be thrown to the wolves, but I'm going to take my chances this time.
The NATO 5.56 round, and more specifically the US military issued M-16 and M4 platforms, are designed for specifically (purposely) suited twists. The twist ratio and the weight of the 5.56 NATO round (think it's roughly 65-75 grain) requires a very specific twist to achieve a tumble upon impact.
Some of you may recall reading or seeing M-16's that had 1 in 7 and 1 in 9 twists. A 1 in 7 twist has one purpose: to be a destructive mechanism.
Nearly any rifle round can be loaded to tumble, but most of the larger military calibers tend to just obliterate targets upon impact (clean entry, large dramatic exit). Most military operators are familiar with the 5.56 enough to know that the wound cavity tends to be the key with that round (even more so with the 7.62)....that's where the tumble usually begins with any round.
Do you see or hear of very many people that have remained standing after being shot with a rifle? Most I've ever encountered are immediately in motion from the energy dispersion throughout the body upon initial impact and throughout bullet-stoppage.
With that in mind, this is also a mitigating circumstance to the tumble. When the body is in any kind of motion the bullet trajectory through the target cannot remain on a straight path, though it will certainly try.
Normally I wouldn't jump in on military ballistics because I'd be thrown to the wolves, but I'm going to take my chances this time.
The NATO 5.56 round, and more specifically the US military issued M-16 and M4 platforms, are designed for specifically (purposely) suited twists. The twist ratio and the weight of the 5.56 NATO round (think it's roughly 65-75 grain) requires a very specific twist to achieve a tumble upon impact.
Some of you may recall reading or seeing M-16's that had 1 in 7 and 1 in 9 twists. A 1 in 7 twist has one purpose: to be a destructive mechanism.
Nearly any rifle round can be loaded to tumble, but most of the larger military calibers tend to just obliterate targets upon impact (clean entry, large dramatic exit). Most military operators are familiar with the 5.56 enough to know that the wound cavity tends to be the key with that round (even more so with the 7.62)....that's where the tumble usually begins with any round.
Do you see or hear of very many people that have remained standing after being shot with a rifle? Most I've ever encountered are immediately in motion from the energy dispersion throughout the body upon initial impact and throughout bullet-stoppage.
With that in mind, this is also a mitigating circumstance to the tumble. When the body is in any kind of motion the bullet trajectory through the target cannot remain on a straight path, though it will certainly try.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
I'm no professional on the topic so this is just my 2 cents. twist rate is needed for bullet stability. example 1 and 9 twist will stabilize lighter bullets. and 1 and 7 are better to stabilize heaver bullets up to 80 grns, I shot a 1 and 7.7 when I shot a black gun across the course to shoot 80 grn bullets out to 600yds(.223). stable bullets will produce tighter groups. ask people who shoot long range they test there groups farther than 100 yards becuase some longer range bullets / loads stabilize better at lets say 300 yds> and beyond. But that’s a whole nother topic.
A high BC bullet / low drag will tumble when it goes subsonic. You may have heard stories on 1000 yd targets at matches people talk of key holes on the paper. That is cuased by the bullet falling through subsonic speed. Look at the design of a pistol bullet and a rifle bullet you don’t here of pistol bullets tumbling on paper, some pistol calibers are shooting super sonic and are falling through subsonic and don’t tumble. Look at .22 ammo on paper you will see the same thing. You can buy subsonic and high velocity .22 ammo the bullet design is the same. And they don’t tumble.
It’s all about the design of the bullet…
I'm no professional on the topic so this is just my 2 cents. twist rate is needed for bullet stability. example 1 and 9 twist will stabilize lighter bullets. and 1 and 7 are better to stabilize heaver bullets up to 80 grns, I shot a 1 and 7.7 when I shot a black gun across the course to shoot 80 grn bullets out to 600yds(.223). stable bullets will produce tighter groups. ask people who shoot long range they test there groups farther than 100 yards becuase some longer range bullets / loads stabilize better at lets say 300 yds> and beyond. But that’s a whole nother topic.
A high BC bullet / low drag will tumble when it goes subsonic. You may have heard stories on 1000 yd targets at matches people talk of key holes on the paper. That is cuased by the bullet falling through subsonic speed. Look at the design of a pistol bullet and a rifle bullet you don’t here of pistol bullets tumbling on paper, some pistol calibers are shooting super sonic and are falling through subsonic and don’t tumble. Look at .22 ammo on paper you will see the same thing. You can buy subsonic and high velocity .22 ammo the bullet design is the same. And they don’t tumble.
It’s all about the design of the bullet…
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dmschmidt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what your saying is that all the ballistics gellatin tests that I have seen are crap, like the wound channels that are straight, I really didn't want to get into a pissin match, but a 69 grain bullet compared to a 168 grainer just can't compare. Ive shot many a deer and I'd never use a .223 on one unless I was assured of a good head shot.</div></div>
Go to www.asrealasitgets.net and there's a guy over there who calls himself Big Stick. Tell him you can't kill a deer with a 223 and see if he agrees.
Report back on your findings.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dmschmidt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what your saying is that all the ballistics gellatin tests that I have seen are crap, like the wound channels that are straight, I really didn't want to get into a pissin match, but a 69 grain bullet compared to a 168 grainer just can't compare. Ive shot many a deer and I'd never use a .223 on one unless I was assured of a good head shot.</div></div>
Go to www.asrealasitgets.net and there's a guy over there who calls himself Big Stick. Tell him you can't kill a deer with a 223 and see if he agrees.
Report back on your findings.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
Suggested reading; start here: http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm About 2/3 down the page is a link to diagrams of actual wound cavities caused by the M193 and M855 Ball cartridges.
Also Google 'Martin Fackler 5.56mm wounds' or something similar, and you'll find enough material to keep you occupied for a day or two. Dr. Fackler has been extensively published on the subject of terminal ballistics and wounds.
Report back when you're finished.
Suggested reading; start here: http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm About 2/3 down the page is a link to diagrams of actual wound cavities caused by the M193 and M855 Ball cartridges.
Also Google 'Martin Fackler 5.56mm wounds' or something similar, and you'll find enough material to keep you occupied for a day or two. Dr. Fackler has been extensively published on the subject of terminal ballistics and wounds.
Report back when you're finished.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
Interesting answers compared to what I think I know(about the purpose of twist.... I know d!ck about terminal ballistics on bipeds). My understanding from some old school service rifle shooters was that when the 1:7 was developed, it was not for any other reason than to stabilize the m-856 tracer round. I think they originally were going to go 1:8 or 1:9, until the tracer was finished, and the faster 1:7 was needed for stabilization.
Interesting answers compared to what I think I know(about the purpose of twist.... I know d!ck about terminal ballistics on bipeds). My understanding from some old school service rifle shooters was that when the 1:7 was developed, it was not for any other reason than to stabilize the m-856 tracer round. I think they originally were going to go 1:8 or 1:9, until the tracer was finished, and the faster 1:7 was needed for stabilization.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
Stability in fluids is not the same as in air. You also have mutiple other factors affecting the bullet.
5.56 does the job but other calibers can do it better all else being equal. Projectile selection is the most important factor.
DocGKR is probably the leading guy on the subject. Google him and you should be able to find enough (current) data to keep you happy.
Stability in fluids is not the same as in air. You also have mutiple other factors affecting the bullet.
5.56 does the job but other calibers can do it better all else being equal. Projectile selection is the most important factor.
DocGKR is probably the leading guy on the subject. Google him and you should be able to find enough (current) data to keep you happy.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dmschmidt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We were debating the merits of the M14 and the 16. Semper fi</div></div>
The 16 is fine for it's purpose. An immediate follow up shot increases lethality rate by approximately 400%. IIRC
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dmschmidt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We were debating the merits of the M14 and the 16. Semper fi</div></div>
The 16 is fine for it's purpose. An immediate follow up shot increases lethality rate by approximately 400%. IIRC
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Normally I wouldn't jump in on military ballistics because I'd be thrown to the wolves, but I'm going to take my chances this time.
The NATO 5.56 round, and more specifically the US military issued M-16 and M4 platforms, are designed for specifically (purposely) suited twists. The twist ratio and the weight of the 5.56 NATO round (think it's roughly 65-75 grain) requires a very specific twist to achieve a tumble upon impact.</div></div>
Nope. The current NATO 5.56 ball round is 62 grains. The twist rate has nothing to do with terminal ballistics and everything to do with external ballistics. The rate is determined as that needed to stabilize the longer tracer round that was adopted by NATO roughly in conjuction with the introduction of the SAW. Twist rate has nothing at all to do with the terminal ballistics.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some of you may recall reading or seeing M-16's that had 1 in 7 and 1 in 9 twists. A 1 in 7 twist has one purpose: to be a destructive mechanism.</div></div>
The M16/M4 FOW do not have 1:9 twist rates. The 1:7 twist has one purpose: to stabilize the newer tracer rounds.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nearly any rifle round can be loaded to tumble, </div></div>
Change that to spitzer-type projo and you're definitely right.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Normally I wouldn't jump in on military ballistics because I'd be thrown to the wolves, but I'm going to take my chances this time.
The NATO 5.56 round, and more specifically the US military issued M-16 and M4 platforms, are designed for specifically (purposely) suited twists. The twist ratio and the weight of the 5.56 NATO round (think it's roughly 65-75 grain) requires a very specific twist to achieve a tumble upon impact.</div></div>
Nope. The current NATO 5.56 ball round is 62 grains. The twist rate has nothing to do with terminal ballistics and everything to do with external ballistics. The rate is determined as that needed to stabilize the longer tracer round that was adopted by NATO roughly in conjuction with the introduction of the SAW. Twist rate has nothing at all to do with the terminal ballistics.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some of you may recall reading or seeing M-16's that had 1 in 7 and 1 in 9 twists. A 1 in 7 twist has one purpose: to be a destructive mechanism.</div></div>
The M16/M4 FOW do not have 1:9 twist rates. The 1:7 twist has one purpose: to stabilize the newer tracer rounds.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nearly any rifle round can be loaded to tumble, </div></div>
Change that to spitzer-type projo and you're definitely right.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
1) Do not mix bullet design and effect along with calibre. They are seperate questions
2) Wounding effect is cumalitive. Two hits produce three times the trauma of a single hit and so on.
3) Having been shot (twice) with the soviet 7,62x39 and picked up people who have been shot with 7.62 NATO ball and IMI 55grn OTM 5.56 bullets...If you are going to get shot, better it be with an AK47. If you are going to be doing the shooting...better it not be with an AK. I doubt I would have survived the chest wound had it been from 7.62 NATO or a .223 HP. The guy who shot me might have survived if had used something with more terminal effectiveness than 7,62x39.
Sorry, Never worked on anyone shot with 5,56 Ball...we were only ever issued OTM.
1) Do not mix bullet design and effect along with calibre. They are seperate questions
2) Wounding effect is cumalitive. Two hits produce three times the trauma of a single hit and so on.
3) Having been shot (twice) with the soviet 7,62x39 and picked up people who have been shot with 7.62 NATO ball and IMI 55grn OTM 5.56 bullets...If you are going to get shot, better it be with an AK47. If you are going to be doing the shooting...better it not be with an AK. I doubt I would have survived the chest wound had it been from 7.62 NATO or a .223 HP. The guy who shot me might have survived if had used something with more terminal effectiveness than 7,62x39.
Sorry, Never worked on anyone shot with 5,56 Ball...we were only ever issued OTM.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
ever see varmint hunting vids?
guys shooting small animals with 40-60gr pills going almost 4000 fps... not much left.
any soft container filled with liquid tends to vaporize when facing something going +3000 fps (we're 70% water)
talking accuracy and talking terminal ballistics are 2 different conversations.
ever see varmint hunting vids?
guys shooting small animals with 40-60gr pills going almost 4000 fps... not much left.
any soft container filled with liquid tends to vaporize when facing something going +3000 fps (we're 70% water)
talking accuracy and talking terminal ballistics are 2 different conversations.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
http://www.razoreye.net/mirror/ammo-oracle/AR15_com_Amm
racle_Mirror.htm
http://www.razoreye.net/mirror/ammo-oracle/AR15_com_Amm
racle_Mirror.htm
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 427Cobra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's true, when you ejaculate inside a chicken, the chicken will die!
http://www.razoreye.net/mirror/ammo-oracle/AR15_com_Ammracle_Mirror.htm </div></div>
I hope you know that from experience, you don't want to state second hand information as fact.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 427Cobra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's true, when you ejaculate inside a chicken, the chicken will die!
http://www.razoreye.net/mirror/ammo-oracle/AR15_com_Amm
racle_Mirror.htm </div></div>
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ALMAORFE</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 427Cobra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's true, when you ejaculate inside a chicken, the chicken will die!
http://www.razoreye.net/mirror/ammo-oracle/AR15_com_Ammracle_Mirror.htm </div></div>
I hope you know that from experience, you don't want to state second hand information as fact.
</div></div>
HAHA, he must have edited that out, good thing your quoted him beforehand.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ALMAORFE</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 427Cobra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's true, when you ejaculate inside a chicken, the chicken will die!
http://www.razoreye.net/mirror/ammo-oracle/AR15_com_Amm
racle_Mirror.htm </div></div>
</div></div>
HAHA, he must have edited that out, good thing your quoted him beforehand.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
Warning graphic photos of a 5.56 gunshot wound below... Not safe for work, church, or the "squeemish". Click here for some graphic photos & ballistics info
Warning graphic photos of a 5.56 gunshot wound below... Not safe for work, church, or the "squeemish". Click here for some graphic photos & ballistics info
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
The .223 can be very effective against people. I shot a guy a few years ago twice with a 55 gr SP, and he was dead before he hit the ground (one center chest shot, once center throat shot that severed his spine). About 2 weeks ago a coworked shot a bad guy who ambushed our officers (BG fired maybe 50 rounds at our guys, didn't hit anyone). My friend got an angle on him, and shot him 3 times from around 65 yards. 1 left forearm, 1 lower back/hip, 1 in the ass. Guy dropped like a sack of hammers, but lived. I had to go babysit the bad guy in the hospital since he was our prisoner and we had to keep 24 guard on him. The hit in the arm was relatively minor, but the other two tore him up badly even though they were pretty close to "million dollar wounds".
Anyone who thinks the .223/5.56 is inadequate on people is mistaken IMHO. Where it is a bit weak is barrier penetration.
The .223 can be very effective against people. I shot a guy a few years ago twice with a 55 gr SP, and he was dead before he hit the ground (one center chest shot, once center throat shot that severed his spine). About 2 weeks ago a coworked shot a bad guy who ambushed our officers (BG fired maybe 50 rounds at our guys, didn't hit anyone). My friend got an angle on him, and shot him 3 times from around 65 yards. 1 left forearm, 1 lower back/hip, 1 in the ass. Guy dropped like a sack of hammers, but lived. I had to go babysit the bad guy in the hospital since he was our prisoner and we had to keep 24 guard on him. The hit in the arm was relatively minor, but the other two tore him up badly even though they were pretty close to "million dollar wounds".
Anyone who thinks the .223/5.56 is inadequate on people is mistaken IMHO. Where it is a bit weak is barrier penetration.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SPDSNYPR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The .223 can be very effective against people. I shot a guy a few years ago twice with a 55 gr SP, and he was dead before he hit the ground (one center chest shot, once center throat shot that severed his spine). About 2 weeks ago a coworked shot a bad guy who ambushed our officers (BG fired maybe 50 rounds at our guys, didn't hit anyone). My friend got an angle on him, and shot him 3 times from around 65 yards. 1 left forearm, 1 lower back/hip, 1 in the ass. Guy dropped like a sack of hammers, but lived. I had to go babysit the bad guy in the hospital since he was our prisoner and we had to keep 24 guard on him. The hit in the arm was relatively minor, but the other two tore him up badly even though they were pretty close to "million dollar wounds".
Anyone who thinks the .223/5.56 is inadequate on people is mistaken IMHO. Where it is a bit weak is barrier penetration. </div></div>
5.56 is perfectly adequate on people I agree................with proper placement. Just ask the stinky hadj.
If you want better barrier penetration use a bonded round pistol or rifle. For example Speer now makes a 64gr bonded 5.56.
Though I'll argue shot placement over caliber or round type any day.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SPDSNYPR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The .223 can be very effective against people. I shot a guy a few years ago twice with a 55 gr SP, and he was dead before he hit the ground (one center chest shot, once center throat shot that severed his spine). About 2 weeks ago a coworked shot a bad guy who ambushed our officers (BG fired maybe 50 rounds at our guys, didn't hit anyone). My friend got an angle on him, and shot him 3 times from around 65 yards. 1 left forearm, 1 lower back/hip, 1 in the ass. Guy dropped like a sack of hammers, but lived. I had to go babysit the bad guy in the hospital since he was our prisoner and we had to keep 24 guard on him. The hit in the arm was relatively minor, but the other two tore him up badly even though they were pretty close to "million dollar wounds".
Anyone who thinks the .223/5.56 is inadequate on people is mistaken IMHO. Where it is a bit weak is barrier penetration. </div></div>
5.56 is perfectly adequate on people I agree................with proper placement. Just ask the stinky hadj.
If you want better barrier penetration use a bonded round pistol or rifle. For example Speer now makes a 64gr bonded 5.56.
Though I'll argue shot placement over caliber or round type any day.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
Caliber is of little consequence when you have good shot placement and pick the right tool for the task at hand. 5.56 NATO has proven itself to be perfectly lethal and potent, however like any other round it has it's limitations. And while it can be used effectively at longer distances it really isn't best choice of long range shooting.
During the course of my career I have seen and treated people shot with everything from 22 to 45 caliber. And all I can say is that I don't want to be shot with any of it. Each and every round has it's own characteristics and it is truly amazing the wounds that people manage to live with. I've seen the guy that was dead before he hit the floor after a self inflicted GSW to his chest. And I have seen the 14 year kid (who made a full recovery) that was shot in chest with 308 during a hunting accident.
The point here is that when put in the right (or wrong depending on the situation) hands any caliber can be lethal. However a true professional will pick the correct tool for the job at hand.
Caliber is of little consequence when you have good shot placement and pick the right tool for the task at hand. 5.56 NATO has proven itself to be perfectly lethal and potent, however like any other round it has it's limitations. And while it can be used effectively at longer distances it really isn't best choice of long range shooting.
During the course of my career I have seen and treated people shot with everything from 22 to 45 caliber. And all I can say is that I don't want to be shot with any of it. Each and every round has it's own characteristics and it is truly amazing the wounds that people manage to live with. I've seen the guy that was dead before he hit the floor after a self inflicted GSW to his chest. And I have seen the 14 year kid (who made a full recovery) that was shot in chest with 308 during a hunting accident.
The point here is that when put in the right (or wrong depending on the situation) hands any caliber can be lethal. However a true professional will pick the correct tool for the job at hand.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CST</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what about when using a Mk262 77gr. out at long distance(in DMR type rifles) like 600-700yards? You may end up being below the 2000fps threshold </div></div>
The 75 and 77 grain projos that have the cannelure have a lower velocity threshold for fragmentation. The cannelure and longer projo length also lend themselves to better fragmentation when they reach 90 deg of yaw.
Also keep in mind that with DMR/SDM type use the shooter is theoretically a better shooter using better equipment and (hopefully) the better round. The idea behind all that is increased descrimination, observation, and accuracy. So placement will (again theoretically) play a large part in the shoot that may offset any "lesser" lethality. A .22 cal hole through the snotlocker and into the CNS is going to have a high likelihood of instant shut down.
ETA: Longshot address the placement issue above, which goes a long way.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CST</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what about when using a Mk262 77gr. out at long distance(in DMR type rifles) like 600-700yards? You may end up being below the 2000fps threshold </div></div>
The 75 and 77 grain projos that have the cannelure have a lower velocity threshold for fragmentation. The cannelure and longer projo length also lend themselves to better fragmentation when they reach 90 deg of yaw.
Also keep in mind that with DMR/SDM type use the shooter is theoretically a better shooter using better equipment and (hopefully) the better round. The idea behind all that is increased descrimination, observation, and accuracy. So placement will (again theoretically) play a large part in the shoot that may offset any "lesser" lethality. A .22 cal hole through the snotlocker and into the CNS is going to have a high likelihood of instant shut down.
ETA: Longshot address the placement issue above, which goes a long way.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
if it were my concern to cause terminal damage to something past 300 yards, ill use my 308.
right tool for the job.
if it were my concern to cause terminal damage to something past 300 yards, ill use my 308.
right tool for the job.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
is this barf.com? all fmj type bullets tumble upon impact with solids but at different rates. the reason tumbling is even mentioned in connection with 5.56 is that given its wimpy diameter the main mechanism of injury becomes the tumbling and subsequent fragmentation, since a .22 hole is tiny but toppling and breakage effectively increases wound channel dimensions. also, it should always be noted that with standard fare, it only fragments at the cannelure above 2700 fps or around 100 yards it stops doing this. wow.
is this barf.com? all fmj type bullets tumble upon impact with solids but at different rates. the reason tumbling is even mentioned in connection with 5.56 is that given its wimpy diameter the main mechanism of injury becomes the tumbling and subsequent fragmentation, since a .22 hole is tiny but toppling and breakage effectively increases wound channel dimensions. also, it should always be noted that with standard fare, it only fragments at the cannelure above 2700 fps or around 100 yards it stops doing this. wow.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: marduk185</div><div class="ubbcode-body">is this barf.com? all fmj type bullets tumble upon impact with solids but at different rates. the reason tumbling is even mentioned in connection with 5.56 is that given its wimpy diameter the main mechanism of injury becomes the tumbling and subsequent fragmentation, since a .22 hole is tiny but toppling and breakage effectively increases wound channel dimensions. also, it should always be noted that with standard fare, it only fragments at the cannelure above 2700 fps or around 100 yards it stops doing this. wow. </div></div>
wow. now you need to start considering the point that the given round drops below 2700 fps. Which brings into question the length of barrel your shooting that particular round from. Lets not forget to mention that all 5.56 rounds are NOT meant to fragment in the first place.
Your figure of at 100 yards comes from where? Some 5.56 rounds can drop below 2700 fps in under 30 yards depending on how hot the round is loaded and the length of barrel being fired from.
Once again, hit the right spot and all that bullshit doesn't matter anyhow.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: marduk185</div><div class="ubbcode-body">is this barf.com? all fmj type bullets tumble upon impact with solids but at different rates. the reason tumbling is even mentioned in connection with 5.56 is that given its wimpy diameter the main mechanism of injury becomes the tumbling and subsequent fragmentation, since a .22 hole is tiny but toppling and breakage effectively increases wound channel dimensions. also, it should always be noted that with standard fare, it only fragments at the cannelure above 2700 fps or around 100 yards it stops doing this. wow. </div></div>
wow. now you need to start considering the point that the given round drops below 2700 fps. Which brings into question the length of barrel your shooting that particular round from. Lets not forget to mention that all 5.56 rounds are NOT meant to fragment in the first place.
Your figure of at 100 yards comes from where? Some 5.56 rounds can drop below 2700 fps in under 30 yards depending on how hot the round is loaded and the length of barrel being fired from.
Once again, hit the right spot and all that bullshit doesn't matter anyhow.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
Everyone is talking about terminal effects at close distance...no doubt you hit a guy up close while clearing a room 2 or 3 times he's going down...
The way I see it, is that there are 3 situations where the .223 is used and may not be as effective in 2 of the 3.
I can imagine getting hit with a high power .223 at 100 yards or less is going to cause alot of damage...
But my main concern is what it does at longer distances..an issue that now becomes apparent with the short barreld M4s..
Perhaps that is why the effects of the round is drawing all the controversy. 150,200,300++yards during engagements may not put someone down as well as a .308.
NOw what about the SPRs ...But even if you ugrade to 77gr. for a SPR...and you hit a bad guy at extreme long range for the 5.56...600yards...will the round still be tumbling? Otherwise your just poking holes at a watermelon at that distance....
If thats the case then whats the point of having a MK12,\SPR etc...type rifle. When I shoot at 600 yards with 75gr. I can barely see the trace if any and the steel dont move when it hits, which isnt always easy in wind as well.
Everyone is talking about terminal effects at close distance...no doubt you hit a guy up close while clearing a room 2 or 3 times he's going down...
The way I see it, is that there are 3 situations where the .223 is used and may not be as effective in 2 of the 3.
I can imagine getting hit with a high power .223 at 100 yards or less is going to cause alot of damage...
But my main concern is what it does at longer distances..an issue that now becomes apparent with the short barreld M4s..
Perhaps that is why the effects of the round is drawing all the controversy. 150,200,300++yards during engagements may not put someone down as well as a .308.
NOw what about the SPRs ...But even if you ugrade to 77gr. for a SPR...and you hit a bad guy at extreme long range for the 5.56...600yards...will the round still be tumbling? Otherwise your just poking holes at a watermelon at that distance....
If thats the case then whats the point of having a MK12,\SPR etc...type rifle. When I shoot at 600 yards with 75gr. I can barely see the trace if any and the steel dont move when it hits, which isnt always easy in wind as well.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
dude. right tool for the job. it's been said before in this thread.
dude. right tool for the job. it's been said before in this thread.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
I am talking about the ballistics of .223 at long range...If if I was going out to Iraq I'd carry a M14 SR25 etc...if I was a DM.
military designates the SPR for 500 meters..so the SPR is the right tool for the job according to them for engagements less than 600 yards....that being said...how much damage you really going to have at 600 yards with a .223?
I am talking about the ballistics of .223 at long range...If if I was going out to Iraq I'd carry a M14 SR25 etc...if I was a DM.
military designates the SPR for 500 meters..so the SPR is the right tool for the job according to them for engagements less than 600 yards....that being said...how much damage you really going to have at 600 yards with a .223?
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
If you were going out to Iraq you'd carry what your given son.
And it's 5.56 not .223.
Again SHOT PLACEMENT TRUMPHS ALL.
If you were going out to Iraq you'd carry what your given son.
And it's 5.56 not .223.
Again SHOT PLACEMENT TRUMPHS ALL.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nicholst55</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Suggested reading; start here: http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm About 2/3 down the page is a link to diagrams of actual wound cavities caused by the M193 and M855 Ball cartridges.
Also Google 'Martin Fackler 5.56mm wounds' or something similar, and you'll find enough material to keep you occupied for a day or two. Dr. Fackler has been extensively published on the subject of terminal ballistics and wounds.
Report back when you're finished. </div></div>
Great post!
The comparisons illustrate that the NATO 5.56 fragments while the 7.62x39 round tumbles and creates two distinct wound cavities. It's reminding me of an episode of Mythbusters where they shot rounds into water to test if you could be safe from fired rounds in water. Rounds were shattering upon impact and the angle of deflection on the water was paramount.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nicholst55</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Suggested reading; start here: http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm About 2/3 down the page is a link to diagrams of actual wound cavities caused by the M193 and M855 Ball cartridges.
Also Google 'Martin Fackler 5.56mm wounds' or something similar, and you'll find enough material to keep you occupied for a day or two. Dr. Fackler has been extensively published on the subject of terminal ballistics and wounds.
Report back when you're finished. </div></div>
Great post!
The comparisons illustrate that the NATO 5.56 fragments while the 7.62x39 round tumbles and creates two distinct wound cavities. It's reminding me of an episode of Mythbusters where they shot rounds into water to test if you could be safe from fired rounds in water. Rounds were shattering upon impact and the angle of deflection on the water was paramount.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
Marines carry .223's (these days). If they were undergunned, their leadership wouldn't waste any time getting them upgunned. The Office of the CMC takes a serious interest in the welfare of their troops. Contrary opinions are welcomed, of course, but the Corps goes with what works. There is no incentive to do otherwise.
Greg
Marines carry .223's (these days). If they were undergunned, their leadership wouldn't waste any time getting them upgunned. The Office of the CMC takes a serious interest in the welfare of their troops. Contrary opinions are welcomed, of course, but the Corps goes with what works. There is no incentive to do otherwise.
Greg
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Marines carry .223's (these days). If they were undergunned, their leadership wouldn't waste any time getting them upgunned. The Office of the CMC takes a serious interest in the welfare of their troops. Contrary opinions are welcomed, of course, but the Corps goes with what works. There is no incentive to do otherwise.
Greg </div></div>
Greg you mean 5.56 don't you?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Marines carry .223's (these days). If they were undergunned, their leadership wouldn't waste any time getting them upgunned. The Office of the CMC takes a serious interest in the welfare of their troops. Contrary opinions are welcomed, of course, but the Corps goes with what works. There is no incentive to do otherwise.
Greg </div></div>
Greg you mean 5.56 don't you?
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dmschmidt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So some of you were in feild, I'd love some input. The debate has raged for years, does the 5.56 cause more damage than it should due to unstability and tumbling? I say no way, caliber is king. If it were unstable, it wouldn't fly straight.</div></div>The debate you speak of is dead. It died in the 1960's. And Lindy is correct, you are confusing an old debate about early barrel twist and obsolete military ammo with subsequent debates about the terminal performance of modern military FMJ ammo.
Much public information exists about the performance of modern 5.56 FMJ ammo in short-barreled carbines. The bottom line is that the FMJ bullets fragment less as velocity decreases: below about 2500fps the bullet stops fragmenting and produces less of a wounding effect. If you exclude tungsten bullets, the exception to this is the 77gr SMK round which performs opposite to what you are implying in your post.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dmschmidt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So some of you were in feild, I'd love some input. The debate has raged for years, does the 5.56 cause more damage than it should due to unstability and tumbling? I say no way, caliber is king. If it were unstable, it wouldn't fly straight.</div></div>The debate you speak of is dead. It died in the 1960's. And Lindy is correct, you are confusing an old debate about early barrel twist and obsolete military ammo with subsequent debates about the terminal performance of modern military FMJ ammo.
Much public information exists about the performance of modern 5.56 FMJ ammo in short-barreled carbines. The bottom line is that the FMJ bullets fragment less as velocity decreases: below about 2500fps the bullet stops fragmenting and produces less of a wounding effect. If you exclude tungsten bullets, the exception to this is the 77gr SMK round which performs opposite to what you are implying in your post.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
'Stopping power' is only of vital consideration at close range. Beyond 'close quaters' the adrenaline filled urge to keep fighting when hit just isn't there and a wounded man will slide away as best he can to get help. If the rifle you are carrying stops bad guys out to 100m, realistically you do not need more.
From an African viewpoint, most wounded 'bad guys' died anyway because they lacked access to decent medical care.
'Stopping power' is only of vital consideration at close range. Beyond 'close quaters' the adrenaline filled urge to keep fighting when hit just isn't there and a wounded man will slide away as best he can to get help. If the rifle you are carrying stops bad guys out to 100m, realistically you do not need more.
From an African viewpoint, most wounded 'bad guys' died anyway because they lacked access to decent medical care.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Greg you mean 5.56 don't you?
</div></div>
Well..., yeah...
I won't argue the differences between .223/5.56. For my purposes they are essentially the same.
Greg
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Greg you mean 5.56 don't you?
</div></div>
Well..., yeah...
I won't argue the differences between .223/5.56. For my purposes they are essentially the same.
Greg
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
Mr. Schmidt, Have you seen this?
Note that .223 ball tends to penetrate 10 inches before tumbling, which means it would pass through an average man's chest, front to back before tumbling.
Hence the advent of expanding bullets.
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#.223
Mr. Schmidt, Have you seen this?
Note that .223 ball tends to penetrate 10 inches before tumbling, which means it would pass through an average man's chest, front to back before tumbling.
Hence the advent of expanding bullets.
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#.223
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dmschmidt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If it were unstable, it wouldn't fly straight. </div></div>
On this point, let me mention that stable in air and stable in flesh are two different things entirely. Pointed bullets tend to be the least stable in flesh, with round noses coming in second and non-expanding flat nose bullets being the most stable in flesh.
However, for the stuff that gets shot with a .223 this is not an issue.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dmschmidt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If it were unstable, it wouldn't fly straight. </div></div>
On this point, let me mention that stable in air and stable in flesh are two different things entirely. Pointed bullets tend to be the least stable in flesh, with round noses coming in second and non-expanding flat nose bullets being the most stable in flesh.
However, for the stuff that gets shot with a .223 this is not an issue.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 500grains</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mr. Schmidt, Have you seen this?
Note that .223 ball tends to penetrate 10 inches before tumbling, which means it would pass through an average man's chest, front to back before tumbling.
Hence the advent of expanding bullets.
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#.223 </div></div>
That chart mentions nothing of inches. That chart is in CM, which means closer to 5" give or take.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 500grains</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mr. Schmidt, Have you seen this?
Note that .223 ball tends to penetrate 10 inches before tumbling, which means it would pass through an average man's chest, front to back before tumbling.
Hence the advent of expanding bullets.
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#.223 </div></div>
That chart mentions nothing of inches. That chart is in CM, which means closer to 5" give or take.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
not if you look at the "long NL" performance. 20 cm, which is actually 7.8 something inches. 10 centimeters is under 4 inches.
not if you look at the "long NL" performance. 20 cm, which is actually 7.8 something inches. 10 centimeters is under 4 inches.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
Everyone should agree that all that matters is "does it put the target down".
The smallest bullet that puts the target down reliably is optimal.
Minimal recoil is important for marksmanship and getting rounds on target quickly.
New shooters do better with light recoiling, smaller, lighter rifles.
Light ammunition has obvious benefits.
The early M-16's had 1:14 twist barrels and produced (reportedly) devastating wounds with 55 grain FMJ.
Bullet stability was marginal so the twist was upped to 1:12.
The "out of all proportion" wounding was reduced but practical bullet accuracy improved.
Longer bullets are easier to get to tumble, and being longer, they should produce more drag whilst sideways.
I'd bet that the lethality of the M855 would increase if it was shot out of a 1:10 or even a 1:9 and given a deeper cannelure.
The tracer is (I believe) the reason for the 1:7 twist.
It's a long bullet of dubious merit, especially in an AR type rifle.
If we could squeeze 80 A-maxes into a magazine (we can with wildcats) it would probably bring back the devastating wounds that the early M193 enjoyed out of the 1:14 barrels.
http://www.6mmar.com/224_AR.html
The practical range would increase and the bullet would have more energy than Mk 262 at all distances.
The .224 AR has over 500 ft x lbs. at 600 yards and good to >1000 yards in a 16" carbine.
It hits harder at 1000 yards than the 62 grainer does at 600, and with only 18 grains more bullet, 3 grains more propellant, and a few grains more brass.
It is more efficient IMO.
Everyone is after the "holy grail" of calibers but they are all a compromise of sorts.
Improving external ballistic efficiency is (IMO) what should be focused on.
If we want the round to hit harder at distance we should feed it bullets that waste energy slower in the air so the target can get more.
Spin those longer bullets enough to get there, but not a lot more.
This allows the bullet to "Ice pick" if it's an FMJ and it will also tumble far easier based solely on it's length.
One way to satisfy the armor penetration requirement along with the antipersonnel requirement and the Geneva unconvention all at the same time.
The energy to do the work has always been there with the 5.56.
Getting it dissipated into the target at engagement ranges has been an issue.
Efficiency improvements and terminal ballistic design will only make it get better and, for now, it's good enough.
I've met a person who'd been hit with the 7.62 x 39 four times.
(Twice in the lower back)
It seems to penetrate very well but based on his injuries I suspect that most of the energy passed right through him.
The exit wounds were old but based on the scarring I'd have to say that the bullet wasn't tumbling.
At shorter ranges the 7.62 x 39 has more energy and more caliber than the lowly 5.56 so why does it seem to underperform?
It's in the details.
This is presented as opinion and that is all.
Everyone should agree that all that matters is "does it put the target down".
The smallest bullet that puts the target down reliably is optimal.
Minimal recoil is important for marksmanship and getting rounds on target quickly.
New shooters do better with light recoiling, smaller, lighter rifles.
Light ammunition has obvious benefits.
The early M-16's had 1:14 twist barrels and produced (reportedly) devastating wounds with 55 grain FMJ.
Bullet stability was marginal so the twist was upped to 1:12.
The "out of all proportion" wounding was reduced but practical bullet accuracy improved.
Longer bullets are easier to get to tumble, and being longer, they should produce more drag whilst sideways.
I'd bet that the lethality of the M855 would increase if it was shot out of a 1:10 or even a 1:9 and given a deeper cannelure.
The tracer is (I believe) the reason for the 1:7 twist.
It's a long bullet of dubious merit, especially in an AR type rifle.
If we could squeeze 80 A-maxes into a magazine (we can with wildcats) it would probably bring back the devastating wounds that the early M193 enjoyed out of the 1:14 barrels.
http://www.6mmar.com/224_AR.html
The practical range would increase and the bullet would have more energy than Mk 262 at all distances.
The .224 AR has over 500 ft x lbs. at 600 yards and good to >1000 yards in a 16" carbine.
It hits harder at 1000 yards than the 62 grainer does at 600, and with only 18 grains more bullet, 3 grains more propellant, and a few grains more brass.
It is more efficient IMO.
Everyone is after the "holy grail" of calibers but they are all a compromise of sorts.
Improving external ballistic efficiency is (IMO) what should be focused on.
If we want the round to hit harder at distance we should feed it bullets that waste energy slower in the air so the target can get more.
Spin those longer bullets enough to get there, but not a lot more.
This allows the bullet to "Ice pick" if it's an FMJ and it will also tumble far easier based solely on it's length.
One way to satisfy the armor penetration requirement along with the antipersonnel requirement and the Geneva unconvention all at the same time.
The energy to do the work has always been there with the 5.56.
Getting it dissipated into the target at engagement ranges has been an issue.
Efficiency improvements and terminal ballistic design will only make it get better and, for now, it's good enough.
I've met a person who'd been hit with the 7.62 x 39 four times.
(Twice in the lower back)
It seems to penetrate very well but based on his injuries I suspect that most of the energy passed right through him.
The exit wounds were old but based on the scarring I'd have to say that the bullet wasn't tumbling.
At shorter ranges the 7.62 x 39 has more energy and more caliber than the lowly 5.56 so why does it seem to underperform?
It's in the details.
This is presented as opinion and that is all.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
Can't comment on what the 5.56 does to people first hand. But after killing my 51st and 52nd deer out of my Mini-14 this past deer season, I can assure you of the lethality on the whitetail deer when neck shot...they drop on the spot, every one of em. The last one I shot, the 63gr.Sierra GK went thru the neck (on a facing shot), blew a fist size hole in the back of her neck and lodged in her right hip, after cutting a 8-10" groove down her back.
Can't comment on what the 5.56 does to people first hand. But after killing my 51st and 52nd deer out of my Mini-14 this past deer season, I can assure you of the lethality on the whitetail deer when neck shot...they drop on the spot, every one of em. The last one I shot, the 63gr.Sierra GK went thru the neck (on a facing shot), blew a fist size hole in the back of her neck and lodged in her right hip, after cutting a 8-10" groove down her back.
Re: Terminal effects of 5.56
There are some good bits of information here. I would like to add this. I have done a lot of deer culling, and in the past would not have considered using a 223. Loved the .308. In the past couple of years I found a very accurate AR and by limiting my shots to 350 yards have not found a bit of difference. 63 grain SP bullets kill, and quickly. I use lung shots and occasionaly hit a shoulder on the way in. The deer, not knowing about ballistics just die. I can see very little or no difference in the 308 and .223. No FMJ bullets. Most drop or run about 30 yards and die. Mostly, I am shooting the large older deer with an average weight of over 200 lb. I am amazed at the performance. This opinion is not based on a few kills. I would not have belived it unless I had seen it. JMO
There are some good bits of information here. I would like to add this. I have done a lot of deer culling, and in the past would not have considered using a 223. Loved the .308. In the past couple of years I found a very accurate AR and by limiting my shots to 350 yards have not found a bit of difference. 63 grain SP bullets kill, and quickly. I use lung shots and occasionaly hit a shoulder on the way in. The deer, not knowing about ballistics just die. I can see very little or no difference in the 308 and .223. No FMJ bullets. Most drop or run about 30 yards and die. Mostly, I am shooting the large older deer with an average weight of over 200 lb. I am amazed at the performance. This opinion is not based on a few kills. I would not have belived it unless I had seen it. JMO
Similar threads
