Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
5/29/2017 5:35:05 AM
Posted: 2/26/2001 10:25:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/26/2001 10:37:25 AM EDT by private_idaho]
Found this link at The Firing Line: [url]http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0108/tolan.shtml[/url] Original thread at: [url]http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=58656[/url] I figure you can use this article as evidence in your arguments against those AK guys who dis' the AR [smash]
Link Posted: 2/26/2001 12:02:05 PM EDT
All spitzer bullets tend to yaw in dense tissue. It is the nature of their design. Because of their light construction, 5.56mm M193 and M855 tend to fracture at the cannelure and fragment when their velocity exceeds 2500 fps. Certain West German (now simply German) 7.62mm M80 Ball fragments just like M193/M855, but is nastier than the 5.56 rounds due to its greater mass. If they go to a non-fragmenting round, the military effectiveness of all 5.56mm weapons will drop.
Link Posted: 2/26/2001 12:18:41 PM EDT
I agree with the bedwetter Liberals on this one. I think we should change to a round that only kills the enemy slightly dead. The stuff we are using on them kills them way too much - I guess you could call it "Overkill." Ideally, we could determine a sufficient level of deadness (as approved by NATO) , and design a round that achieves that level of deadness. Not TOO dead, not under dead, but just the right amount of dead. If it is determined developing a round that kills to an acceptable level of deadness is NOT cost effective, perhaps we can start conducting wars with paintball guns, and once an enemy soldier is "marked" they must remain out of the game for, say, five years. '
Link Posted: 2/26/2001 12:24:16 PM EDT
Well, considering that: *Any potential enemy we will ever have to fight will be shooting at us with a 5.45- *The 5.45 is a better round than the 5.56 It dosen't make much sense for us to lighten up any further.
Link Posted: 2/26/2001 1:20:22 PM EDT
I wonder how they would react if M60E3's or MK19's(w/HEDP rounds) were used. ACGUNNER PEACE IS A LONG FORGOTTEN DREAM
Link Posted: 2/26/2001 1:38:29 PM EDT
McUzi, explain to me WHY the 5.45x39mm is "a much better round" than the 5.56x45mm? Better in what respect? Sorry, I just don't get it! DaMan
Link Posted: 2/26/2001 1:46:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/26/2001 1:59:01 PM EDT by Dave_G]
garandman, Actually, I think the Libs are whining because the M193/M855 rounds are [b]maiming[/b] more than they are killing. Lots of nasty wounds, fewer deaths. McUzi, 7.62x39 is still the most prevalent round in military use in the world, followed by 5.56mm, 7.62mm and 5.45mm. Could be wrong, but I doubt it. And the 5.45mm is superior to the 5.56mm for what reason(s)?
Link Posted: 2/26/2001 1:48:35 PM EDT
Yeah McUZI, WTF with the 5.45 anyway? And HTF do you know we will be under fire from 5.45? Whatabout 7.63X39? Eh? Whadabout 90mm?? Wha?
Link Posted: 2/26/2001 2:09:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave G: garandman, Actually, I think the Libs are whining because the M193/M855 rounds are [b]maiming[/b] more than they are killing. Lots of nasty wounds, fewer deaths.
View Quote
Dave - I got it. The whole point of war is to inflict injury. The whole theory of modern war is that to injure is even better than killing the enemy,as it takes two other enemies out of the fight, caring for the wounded. The Liberals seem to want to wage a war where no one gets hurt. Which was the point of my post. The intent / desire to make an injury free round is ludicrous. The intent to make a reduced injury round is against the whole theory of war. that's why they say "War is hell." You can't sanitize it so that it fits somebodys idea of being sufficiently non-violent.
Link Posted: 2/26/2001 2:31:52 PM EDT
what's with this stupid ak vs ar crap. you guys are no better than the "the ak is best" crowd. this shit irratates me. the ak is not 7.62x39mm only. as i have stated before the ak is available in a variety of calibers. accuracy potential depends upon the quality of manufacture. the 5.45x39.5mm round expends its energy quicker upon impact than the 5.56mm round. the 5.56mm round also stands a good chance of passing through the target and not deliver enough shock at close ranges. this is also why the 7.62x39mm round is more usefull for dropping deer. especially with hollow points. "uuggghhhh....my gun is better than yours, my gun is better than yooooouurssss" grow up a gun is a tool, different tools for different tasks
Link Posted: 2/26/2001 4:20:14 PM EDT
garandman, can you please define the right amount of deadness? how can one tell? anyway, just like the suits where i work, the politicos have to find problems where there really are none. who thinks up this s**t anyhow?
Link Posted: 2/26/2001 5:18:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By libertarian: what's with this stupid ak vs ar crap. a gun is a tool, different tools for different tasks
View Quote
Libertarian - I completely agree. The problem with text is that one cannot adequately convey tone - I guess I should have put the "eyes rolling" face on there, but I don't know and couldn't find the code for it. My main point was to point out the nonsense of the linked article.
Link Posted: 2/27/2001 4:44:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By black&green: garandman, can you please define the right amount of deadness? how can one tell
View Quote
Well,as I indicated, I would be willing to accept NATO's defintion of the right amount of deadness, but as a minimum, I suppose the defintion would contain a provision where they don't move if ya poke 'em in the eye with a stick. [}:D]
Link Posted: 2/27/2001 5:05:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/27/2001 5:16:45 AM EDT by Bermshot]
The "stick in the eye" method, while fairly reliable, has been known to fail on a few (rare) occasions. While it takes a little longer, the temperature test is considerably more certain. One could reasonably assume that a body at room temp (20°C, or 68°F), will in all likelyhood remain inanamate indefinitely, or at least 'till the second coming.
Link Posted: 2/27/2001 5:07:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By black&green: garandman, can you please define the right amount of deadness? how can one tell
View Quote
Well,as I indicated, I would be willing to accept NATO's defintion of the right amount of deadness, but as a minimum, I suppose the defintion would contain a provision where they don't move if ya poke 'em in the eye with a stick. ok, maybe thats how NATO determines too! now, about the "cost effective" matter....... [}:D]
View Quote
Link Posted: 2/27/2001 5:09:27 AM EDT
messed that up, but point taken i hope!
Link Posted: 2/27/2001 7:36:58 AM EDT
How many have been killed vs wounded? I believe the Israelis are shooting to wound, not kill. I guess they need different weapons for wounding, like AK's and leave the M16's to do the killing. It would be interesting to see what a Barnes 40 gr solid would do out of the M16........I bet at 3700 fps, it would wound just like M193
Link Posted: 2/27/2001 9:09:28 AM EDT
The absolute only reason the sub-.30 calliber millitary rifle isn't a roaring joke is because it's "yawing" abillity in soft tissue. Considering the millitary's limitations on certian types of expanding/frag/flat tipped ammo, they had to find a way to compensate with a ball round. Thus, the .223 was deemed adequate. Since the 5.45 "yaws" better than the .223, it is a better round, since the .223's "Yaw" is it's sole virtuem. Explained.
Link Posted: 2/27/2001 9:42:55 AM EDT
McUzi, The yaw and fragmentation of the M193 round, which is what causes the nasty wounds was not understood until years after the bullet was designed. ALL spitzer type military rifle bullets tend to yaw when they pass through denser tissue. You need to read "Military Rifle Bullet Wound Patterns" by Martin L. Fackler. While this study was intended to provide information to combat surgeon on what to expect on treating bullet wounds, and to aid them in identifying the bullet that made the wound, it does shed some light on your claim. yes the 5.45mmx39 bullet yaws early, but there is little or no fragmentation of the bullet. The wound is simply that of a tumbling bullet and is far less disruptive than the 5.56mm M193. As for the Russian 7.62x39mm, the typical path through the abdomen causes minimal disruption; holes in organs were similar to those caused by a non-hollow-point handgun bullet. The average uncomplicated thigh wound is about what one would expect from a low-powered handgun: a small, punctuate entrance and exit wound with minimal intervening muscle disruption. The Yugoslav 7.62x39mm yaws earlier and describes a peculiar curved path through the body and is only slightly more disruptive than the Russian round. The 5.45x39mm round performs much like the Yugoslav 7.62x39mm, though its very early yaw tends to make for more disruptive injuries to extremities. It ain't no superbullet. "Energy Deposit" is a load of manure. It is really meaningless. I can deliver a higher "energy deposit" with my fist than any AK or AR15 round can. It is the physical damage the bullet does that is important.
Link Posted: 2/27/2001 10:09:56 AM EDT
SHeeeesh. Some people. Leave it to you guys to take a perfectly ludicrous debate about bullets that only kill to an "approved level of deadness" and poking people in the eye with a stick.... ...and have it degerate into a discussion of yaw rates. Gun nerdo geektrons. Thats whatcha are. Not everything has to be a technical debate. [:(]
Link Posted: 2/27/2001 10:23:10 AM EDT
Interesting, no one has mentioned hydrostatic shock. This is also what makes the 5.56mm an effective anti-personel round. It's important to remember that the human body is comprised of 70% H2O the majority of this is found in the soft tissue. When struck by a small object traveling at high velocity (3500 fps) a shock wave forms in the soft tissue, this violently expanding wave creates a temporary cavity (this effect can be seen when shooting water at a perpendicular angle). the formation of this temporary cavity tends to disrupt the functions of internal organs and results in the incapacitation of the target either temporarily or permenantly. As a rule of thumb the higher the velocity the larger the permanent cavity (bullet hole) fragmenting just enhances this effect. another rule of thumb the higher the velocity the larger the temporary cavity. note: this effect is less apparent in chest wounds due to the membrane makeup of lung tissue (less water less effect) oh by the way .45, 9mm, 7.62, 5.45, 5.56, 30-06 yada yada yada learn to freakin' shoot
Link Posted: 2/27/2001 10:33:00 AM EDT
I thought it has been long standing military philosphy that it is better to maim than kill. Look at punji sticks, anti-personel mines, etc. For every one wounded, it takes at least 1 or 2 combatants to treat the wounded. That is 1 or 2 extra guys not shooting back at you. I guess just like everything else, liberals just don't think that's fair.
Link Posted: 2/27/2001 1:20:08 PM EDT
please keep in mind that even fackler's study has been disputed by other "experts". ballistic gelatin and actual tissue are two different things. i saw this debate in full at ak-47.net about three months ago. quite long. shot placement is what really kills.
Link Posted: 2/27/2001 1:26:46 PM EDT
Sure would not want to be at the recieving end of ANY round. Was taught that when ever we engage the enemy, it was best to SATURATE the area w/as many accurate rounds possible. ACGUNNER PEACE IS A LONG FORGOTTEN DREAM
Link Posted: 2/27/2001 2:42:48 PM EDT
Garandman is dead on with his comment. Too much dead is just as bad as not dead enough.
Top Top