I'm having a hard time convincing my cousin that everything that he hears on the history channel is not true...

Could you all provide a source that I can print out and hand it to him?

I'll be building his first AR-15 soon and he is extremely new to shooting...

LTC Chuck Santose on why the 5.56 was NOT "Designed to Wound"

The US military is smart enough to realize our enemies and potential enemies don't bother with combat medics and are not going to spend any troop resources during a fight to carry wounded off the field.  US Forces may to this, but anyone think the PAVN, Russians, or Taliban bother?  There has never been a US weapon designed to "wound" not kill.

Bullets have been getting smaller ever since the US Army used captured .75 caliber Tower Muskets during the Revolution.

The small caliber studies of the early 1950s (notably the Hall Study), originally used commercial .222, and determined there was much higher probability of hit and that each hit had the same probability of lethality as .30 M2 Ball (.30-06).  Before WW2 only the depression kept US forces armed with .30.  The M1 Rifle was designed for .27x Caliber (x = "something") with a 10 shot clip.  Only the inability to manufacture .27x ammunition and new rifles kept the P13 out of UK service before WW1.  In those days lethality was thought to be a direct function of striking energy and 60 foot pounds was the lower threshold.

Energy as a lethality measurement is bogus, but it's still a common misconception.  Potential lethality is directly proportional to the size of the wound and the damage to the target.  5.56mm Ball creates 6" diameter wounds in center of mass shots; 7.62mm NATO and .30-06 create .3" wounds.  5.56mm performs no worse than .30 in non torso strikes. Even if we could get 7.62mm NATO to produce 6" wounds (and there are some military bullets which will) we'd still have to lug around heavier rifles and heavier ammo.  Light recoil ot 5.56mm improves hit potential.  Flat trajectory (high velocity) improves hit hit potential.

Studies of combat casualties done by the UK, Germany, and the US long ago determined that the more than half of the rifle bullet strikes occur less than 100 meters from the rifle, that is to say, the average range where a bullet strike will likely happen is less than 100 meters.  Call this "normal combat range."  Strikes are rare at 300 meters.  This is not a Vietnam discovery.  It's verified as long as the Spanish American war and includes both World Wars, Korea, and various mini wars since Vietnam.  Drop to the prone in your backyard and note how far you can detect targets without cover, then remember the enemy uses cover just like we do.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Repeating a long standing myth about small bullets which was first noted about those evil Japs during WW2.  They were using a bullet less powerful than .30 so there must be something evil about it.  There's no basis of truth in "wound, not kill."  Not in WW2.  Not today.

First there's no combat reason to wound and not kill.

Why anyone would think an enemy force would care enough about their wounded to have two soldiers, or even one, carry him off the battlefield is beyond me.  Hardly anybody cares about their wounded but us.  No one we've fought in the last century, starting with the Spanish and Moros and ending with whoever you want in the 1990s bothered about their wounded in battle.

Medics?  What medics?  US Forces have medics as do most western armies, but we're not fighting western armies.  Most armies don't bother with medics until after the battle is done.

Second the bullets meet all "criteria" to inflict lethal wounds well beyond combat ranges.

Military bullets like M193 or M855 Ball were designed based on the minimum amount of kinetic energy considered to cause a fatal wound.  [A flawed theory continued by glossy gun magazines who continue to quote muzzle or  striking energy as if it had any meaning.  We know (since the early 1980s) the important criteria is the size and placement of the wound, not the energy expended creating it.]

The Army had determined before WW2 that 60 foot-pounds of energy was needed to inflict a disabling wound (shoot to wound) and that 108 foot-pounds was necessary to inflict a lethal wound (shoot to kill).

5.56mm Ball meets the "lethal wound" criteria at 1000 yards and the "disabling wound" criteria beyond 1300 yards where my ballistic tables finally give up.  If the cartridge was "designed" to wound or maim the design criteria of the day would allow much less kinetic energy (KE) on the bullet, trying to keep it below 108 foot-pounds at combat ranges.  That would assure it wounded and not killed.  As we know there was no such attempt to keep KE levels low and there was, in fact, a push for higher velocity which influences KE by the power of two.

These energy numbers are just interesting, not definitive of anything, but that's what folks thought in those days, and many folks still believe today.

The performance of the bullet speaks for itself, of course, and it's quite a nice killing bullet at combat ranges.  As good as 7.62mm or .30-06. Oh the KE levels are half that of the .30s, but so what?

Still have to strike a vital area of the body to do more than wound anyway.  Bullet strikes are essentially random strikes around the aiming point, so even a good hold at center of mass won't assure a incapacitating bullet strike.  But the law of averages is on the side of CoM shots.

Tell him a lot of people have died from wounds. If he can't grasp that I'd stop the build.

i might argue that a few types of landmines were perhaps designed to wound by destroying the legs but often (usually?) not killing the victim outright.

Wrong! The weapons ARE DESIGNED TO KILL!!!

The AMMUNITION IS DESIGNED TO WOUND!!

7.62 x 51  is designed to wound???

Wound Godzill maybe.

And an awful lot of dead tangoes from 5.56.

Guess its all defective ammo. They should send it to me fpr proper disposal.

the idea that a military cartridge is designed to wound, instead of kill, is retarded.

the guy on the other side is sure as shit going to kill you if given the opportunity. why would a country make ammunition for its' soldiers weapons, that won't stop that?

well, the swiss GP90 ammo was specifically designed not to fragment, and to try to prevent yawing in order to not cause "unnecessary suffering" and comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the hague convention....

Firearms are designed to launch a projectile toward the target the shooting is aiming.  Killing is the function of the shooter using said firearm against an animate target with the correct ammo.  Note the first statement and the second are only connected by the freewill of the shooter.  Ergo, firearms do not kill, the shooter does.

So what does it take in injury level for a firearm round to be fatal?  A bullet?  No, consider Jon Eric Hexum.  Accidently killed himself with a BLANK.   Energy?  Even the lowly .22 long rifle round is lethal.  

But then why are hollowpoints still outlawed?

It may not be our military that decided wounding was better but some international body decided that certain bullets were illegal and inhuman.

Wouldn't the US military be better off with 5.56mm varmint loads?

Quoted: 5.56mm Ball meets the "lethal wound" criteria at 1000 yards and the "disabling wound" criteria beyond 1300 yards where my ballistic tables finally give up.  If the cartridge was "designed" to wound or maim the design criteria of the day would allow much less kinetic energy (KE) on the bullet, trying to keep it below 108 foot-pounds at combat ranges.  That would assure it wounded and not killed.  As we know there was no such attempt to keep KE levels low and there was, in fact, a push for higher velocity which influences KE by the power of two.

This is as blatant as it gets.  You know the Soviet manual says the AK is "capable of destroying collective and individual targets at ranges of up to 500 meters," and how a "well-trained rifleman can fire aimed semiautomatic fire at ranges of up to 600 meters."


Not in my wet dreams...brother.  300 meters is probably dead on.  400 for a crack shot.

Please, cut out the propaganda and myths.


IMHO, I don't think run-of-the-mill 5.56 ball will make "lethal wound" at 1,000 yds.

I just shot him.  The bullets and the fall killed him.

Quoted: Send him to me and I'll slap him around until he realizes he's wrong.

I get him next.

Quoted: Quoted: 5.56mm Ball meets the "lethal wound" criteria at 1000 yards and the "disabling wound" criteria beyond 1300 yards where my ballistic tables finally give up.  If the cartridge was "designed" to wound or maim the design criteria of the day would allow much less kinetic energy (KE) on the bullet, trying to keep it below 108 foot-pounds at combat ranges.  That would assure it wounded and not killed.  As we know there was no such attempt to keep KE levels low and there was, in fact, a push for higher velocity which influences KE by the power of two. This is as blatant as it gets.  You know the Soviet manual says the AK is "capable of destroying collective and individual targets at ranges of up to 500 meters," and how a "well-trained rifleman can fire aimed semiautomatic fire at ranges of up to 600 meters." Not in my wet dreams...brother.  300 meters is probably dead on.  400 for a crack shot. Please, cut out the propaganda and myths. IMHO, I don't think run-of-the-mill 5.56 ball will make "lethal wound" at 1,000 yds.

Why not?  M855 still has the ability to completely penetrate the average human at that range.  That is all that is necessary for lethality.  Now hitting a target at that range would be difficult but spray long enough with an M249 and you will eventually hit the target.


Hell, my uncle (long dead) had used a lowly .22 SHORT to kill maruading deer in his fields.  And by hitting them in the neck, DROPPED THEM DEAD IN THEIR TRACKS.  

Quoted: Before WW2 only the depression kept US forces armed with .30.  The M1 Rifle was designed for .27x Caliber (x = "something") with a 10 shot clip.  Only the inability to manufacture .27x ammunition and new rifles kept the P13 out of UK service before WW1.

Tidbit... only the depression kept the US from entering WWII armed with (effectively) the 6.8 SPC The original Garand cartridge was very close.

I guess this topic comes up once a year.  

I suppose it's better than the weekly RETARD thread about how to paint the letters on your AR lower.

Quoted: Quoted: Before WW2 only the depression kept US forces armed with .30.  The M1 Rifle was designed for .27x Caliber (x = "something") with a 10 shot clip.  Only the inability to manufacture .27x ammunition and new rifles kept the P13 out of UK service before WW1. Tidbit... only the depression kept the US from entering WWII armed with (effectively) the 6.8 SPC The original Garand cartridge was very close.

.276 Pedersen

Pedersen rifle

I agree with everything that has been said about the lethality of the 5.56 round and further agree that the amount of rounds one can carry and the weight of those rounds play a role in the practicality of the chosen round.

My question is: with the advent of Body Armor, which round is more effective if one were to assume (which I agree this is a poor assumption) that all targets were equipped with body armor?

In other words, those numbers about wound size and energy needed to inflict a lethal wound, would the 5.56 still meet those metrics if body armor were added into the equation.  In essence, is the 5.56 still big enough to be effective if one were to assume that all targets were equiped with body armor.

I am playing devil's advocate here and pose this question just for discussion purposes, I don't know the answer.

Quoted: Quoted: Send him to me and I'll slap him around until he realizes he's wrong. I get him next.

Pass me the sign-up list when you're done, would ya?

Quoted: most rifle rounds will easily pentrate soft armor at range. shoot them the same way with the same ammo. Unless they are wearing plates, a lethal shot placement will be just a slethal with soft armor.

Actually may reduce over penetration, thereby INCREASING lethality.  

Quoted: In other words, those numbers about wound size and energy needed to inflict a lethal wound, would the 5.56 still meet those metrics if body armor were added into the equation.  In essence, is the 5.56 still big enough to be effective if one were to assume that all targets were equiped with body armor.

With soft (Level 3 and below) body armor the difference in performanc is minimal.

With the rifle plates it doesn't matter because 5.56 nor 7.62 ball will NOT be gettting through.

Quoted: I agree with everything that has been said about the lethality of the 5.56 round and further agree that the amount of rounds one can carry and the weight of those rounds play a role in the practicality of the chosen round. My question is: with the advent of Body Armor, which round is more effective if one were to assume (which I agree this is a poor assumption) that all targets were equipped with body armor? In other words, those numbers about wound size and energy needed to inflict a lethal wound, would the 5.56 still meet those metrics if body armor were added into the equation.  In essence, is the 5.56 still big enough to be effective if one were to assume that all targets were equiped with body armor. I am playing devil's advocate here and pose this question just for discussion purposes, I don't know the answer.

One M855 spec is that it will penetrate a kevlar helmet at 600 meters.

Quoted: I guess this topic comes up once a year.   I suppose it's better than the weekly RETARD thread about how to paint the letters on your AR lower.

WTF! But that looks cool! Seriously! I did it on mine and I get extra thrusts per squeeze when bumpfiring.
No but really it is a nice touch. Now that SEBR with all the gold inlay with Operation Iraqi Freedom crap all over it is ghey.

Don't forget the legendary "Tumbling" .223. Goes in your eye and comes out your butt. Funny how 5 30rnd mags 0f my bullets at 200 yrds tumble just perfect as to make tiny holes with no yawn.

Quoted: Quoted: I agree with everything that has been said about the lethality of the 5.56 round and further agree that the amount of rounds one can carry and the weight of those rounds play a role in the practicality of the chosen round. My question is: with the advent of Body Armor, which round is more effective if one were to assume (which I agree this is a poor assumption) that all targets were equipped with body armor? In other words, those numbers about wound size and energy needed to inflict a lethal wound, would the 5.56 still meet those metrics if body armor were added into the equation.  In essence, is the 5.56 still big enough to be effective if one were to assume that all targets were equiped with body armor. I am playing devil's advocate here and pose this question just for discussion purposes, I don't know the answer. One M855 spec is that it will penetrate a kevlarSTEEL helmet at 600 meters.

The K-pot will stop M855 although not reliably.  But M855 will reliably penetrate the helmet at that distance.

Quoted: Don't forget the legendary "Tumbling" .223. Goes in your eye and comes out your butt. Funny how 5 30rnd mags 0f my bullets at 200 yrds tumble just perfect as to make tiny holes with no yawn.

The tumbling in flight nonsense probably comes in part because of what happens with improperly stabilized projectiles (wrong twist rate for the weight of the bullet)


The result of unstabilized bullets:
A 1 in 12" FN-FNC firing M855 at 100 yards.
(Note the profiles cut out of the target).

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I agree with everything that has been said about the lethality of the 5.56 round and further agree that the amount of rounds one can carry and the weight of those rounds play a role in the practicality of the chosen round. My question is: with the advent of Body Armor, which round is more effective if one were to assume (which I agree this is a poor assumption) that all targets were equipped with body armor? In other words, those numbers about wound size and energy needed to inflict a lethal wound, would the 5.56 still meet those metrics if body armor were added into the equation.  In essence, is the 5.56 still big enough to be effective if one were to assume that all targets were equiped with body armor. I am playing devil's advocate here and pose this question just for discussion purposes, I don't know the answer. One M855 spec is that it will penetrate a kevlarSTEEL helmet at 600 meters. The K-pot will stop M855 although not reliably.  But M855 will reliably penetrate the helmet at that distance.

You are right.  I guess I was having a brain spasm.

Quoted: Don't forget the legendary "Tumbling" .223. Goes in your eye and comes out your butt. Funny how 5 30rnd mags 0f my bullets at 200 yrds tumble just perfect as to make tiny holes with no yawn.

Yep, yawning bullets are bored bullets.  

Quoted: Don't forget the legendary "Tumbling" .223. Goes in your eye and comes out your butt. Funny how 5 30rnd mags 0f my bullets at 200 yrds tumble just perfect as to make tiny holes with no yawn.

ALL elongated bullets that are rifling stabilized WILL tumble upon traveling through a media with greater density than air.  Normal expansive hunting bullets shift their CG forward upon expanding, limiting tumbling.

The tumbling rate is based on the length of the bullet or transverse moment of inertia.  Very long bullets may not tumble when encountering a human target but shorter bullets like that in a US M855 round will.  

Its all physics.  To prevent yaw when shooting through water, a bullet would have to be spinning in the range of 6 turns per inch.  Roughly 42 times faster than the standard M4/M16A2.  But that is IMPOSSIBLE.

Quoted: Quoted: Don't forget the legendary "Tumbling" .223. Goes in your eye and comes out your butt. Funny how 5 30rnd mags 0f my bullets at 200 yrds tumble just perfect as to make tiny holes with no yawn. ALL elongated bullets that are rifling stabilized WILL tumble upon traveling through a media with greater density than air.  Normal expansive hunting bullets shift their CG forward upon expanding, limiting tumbling. The tumbling rate is based on the length of the bullet or transverse moment of inertia.  Very long bullets may not tumble when encountering a human target but shorter bullets like that in a US M855 round will.   Its all physics.  To prevent yaw when shooting through water, a bullet would have to be spinning in the range of 6 turns per inch.  Roughly 42 times faster than the standard M4/M16A2.  But that is IMPOSSIBLE.

Nice post.

And on a related note, that yaw puts a lot of stress on the projectile and if the velocity is high enough the projectile will break apart.

Quoted: But then why are hollowpoints still outlawed? It may not be our military that decided wounding was better but some international body decided that certain bullets were illegal and inhuman. Wouldn't the US military be better off with 5.56mm varmint loads?

The hollowpoint arguement was part of the Hague Agreement...  We never signed the agreement, however we CHOOSE to abide by it.  The US is not bound by anything that says we cant use hollowpoints.

Quoted: Could you all provide a source that I can print out and hand it to him?

Your cousin is an idiot and I am suprised he is able to breathe on his own...

ANYTHING that fires a projectile is potentially lethal.  

Firearms are DESIGNED to be lethal.  

If he cant understnad that he has no business owning a firearm, especially if you have to PROVE it to him

Don't listen to all the naysayers with all their science and logic and stuff. Your cousin is right.

When Mattel originally manufactured the M16, they made it for the express purpose of wounding, not killing.

It's true, I heard it at a gun show from a 25 year old Vietnam Vet Navy SEAL. Don't tell anyone though, 'cause it's Top Secret information, and he only told me because I was buying some teflon-coated-armor-piercing-cop-killer bullets, so he knew he could trust me.

Quoted: Don't listen to all the naysayers with all their science and logic and stuff. Your cousin is right. When Mattel originally manufactured the M16, they made it for the express purpose of wounding, not killing. It's true, I heard it at a gun show from a 25 year old Vietnam Vet Navy SEAL. Don't tell anyone though, 'cause it's Top Secret information, and he only told me because I was buying some teflon-coated-armor-piercing-cop-killer bullets, so he knew he could trust me.

Was he also selling jerkey?

Quoted: Quoted: Don't listen to all the naysayers with all their science and logic and stuff. Your cousin is right. When Mattel originally manufactured the M16, they made it for the express purpose of wounding, not killing. It's true, I heard it at a gun show from a 25 year old Vietnam Vet Navy SEAL. Don't tell anyone though, 'cause it's Top Secret information, and he only told me because I was buying some teflon-coated-armor-piercing-cop-killer bullets, so he knew he could trust me. Was he also selling jerkey?

No, this guy was a REAL operator. Hell, the jerky guy was only a Ranger in the Korean War. What the hell would he know about an M16?

Nuclear weapons wound a lot of people too.  But their purpose is to destroy and kill.

tag

I would say that anyone who is just wounded by a .223 round should count himself very lucky.

Quoted: Quoted: Could you all provide a source that I can print out and hand it to him? Your cousin is an idiot and I am suprised he is able to breathe on his own... ANYTHING that fires a projectile is potentially lethal.   Firearms are DESIGNED to be lethal.   If he cant understnad that he has no business owning a firearm, especially if you have to PROVE it to him

Maybe you misunderstood my question...

My cousin heard on the history channel that the M16 was created and designed to wound, not kill...


He has only been shooting with me a few times and he hasn't caught full blown BRD...

Once I get around to building his AR-15, he'll get it soon...

Have some mercy on the newbies! *Sheesh*

Not everyone knows as much about guns like the average ARFCOMmer and, I think this additude is what drives some new people away from the sport...


The original link and article will be enough to hand to him...


ETA: Thank you IAMLEGEND

Quoted: Quoted: But then why are hollowpoints still outlawed? It may not be our military that decided wounding was better but some international body decided that certain bullets were illegal and inhuman. Wouldn't the US military be better off with 5.56mm varmint loads? The hollowpoint arguement was part of the Hague Agreement...  We never signed the agreement, however we CHOOSE to abide by it.  The US is not bound by anything that says we cant use hollowpoints.

I never did get why we follow rules we never agreed to. Why NOT use the best ammo instead of FMJ? If hollowpoints are more effective, use 'em. If not, don't.

Quoted: I guess this topic comes up once a year.   I suppose it's better than the weekly RETARD thread about how to paint the number 87 on your AR lower.

Quoted: I never did get why we follow rules we never agreed to. Why NOT use the best ammo instead of FMJ? If hollowpoints are more effective, use 'em. If not, don't.

I thinks its probably more of an economics issue than anything else...  I bet the HSLD guys get whatever ammo they want. If the standard ammo is 90% effective compared to the "good" ammo but the good ammo costs twice as much, give the legs the regular ammo.

Quoted: I never did get why we follow rules we never agreed to. Why NOT use the best ammo instead of FMJ? If hollowpoints are more effective, use 'em. If not, don't.

The way I understand it (from several JAG briefings over the years) is that we choose to follow the guidelines in the hopes that others will not use hollowpoints against us. If they did, we would have the moral high ground in decrying their actions.

However, if we saw fit to use nonstandard ammunition, we would not have broken any agreement in doing so. I believe we have used ammunition other than ball (AOTB? ) on a limited and specialized basis.

Or, maybe I'm all fucked up on this. Wouldn't be the first time JAG gave out bad info.