User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/22/2005 3:49:52 PM EDT
[#1]
Depends on the loading but FMJ military ball 5.56 causes more damage than the 30-06 loading. It has nothing to do with hydrostatic shock which is a junk science term but with the fact the 5.56 fragments after yawing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2005 5:43:29 PM EDT
[#2]
To you and me, this is a normal everyday thing. But to most of the uneducated people out there, your statement is simply beyond belief. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2005 5:53:28 PM EDT
[#3]
We aren't talking ball loadings here.....hunting loads. Say Nosler Balistic Tips or someting on that order.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2005 6:11:09 PM EDT
[#4]
.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2005 6:40:28 PM EDT
[#5]
No question the 30-06 will have more temporary cavity, penetration, fragments etc if you comapared equivalent HP or ballistic tip loadings.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2005 7:50:22 PM EDT
[#6]
Gel tests with the .308 Hornady TAP 155gr A-max were pretty breathtaking: no neck, very large temporary and permanent stretch, 14-15" penetration, IIRC -- all substantially greater than .223. Were someone to load this bullet (or a similar performer) in the .30/06 to the same pressure as the .308 TAP (hence slightly higher velocity), the .30/06 wins hands down.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2005 4:12:11 AM EDT
[#7]
Don't forget to tell your buddy that you can carry 3x as much ammo with the .223 than the .30-06. That'll get him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2005 8:57:49 AM EDT
[#8]
I have a few questions,
xm193cure, you said that if you loaded .30-06 with 155grain Amax's to the same level as .308 TAP, that the .308 loading is faster than the larger cased .30-06? I thought the .30-06 typically is a faster round? On the .223/5.56 ammo fragmentation. I understand that concept of the fragmentation, but how reliable is the fragmentation? Is this something that can be counted on reliably in real world usage or is it just reliablle in the gel tests? I see a single consistent media vs the major differences found in animal tissue to be a heavy comprimise to get data. It does standardize results really well, and gives you repeatability in your trials, which is needed, but it seems that this cannot match up 1:1 with animal tissues. It seems that the yawing happens due to the drag of the bullet. They then fragment as the forces applied are greater than those holding the bullet together. Couldn't a .30-06 with a massive advantage in energy have better fragmentation than the .223? Not trying to start arguements, just curious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2005 10:47:20 AM EDT
[#9]
In military loads the 7.62 NATO (.308) is the same as M2 ball (.30-06). The 7.62 NATO was designed to take advantage of the newer powders that were available at the time (compared to the early smokeless powders available in 1906). I'm sure with a modern firearm you could load .30-06 to higher velocities than the .308 as you have more powder capacity. I'd suggest talking to the guys in the reloading forum to see what they get for results.
Depends on the bullet used. M855 - not very reliable, 75gr Hornady - Extreamly reliable, IIRC the bullet used in M193 would fail to fragment about 25% of the time given that it hit at or above the minium velocity needed for fragmentation.
Yes if the proper bullet is used. With the .223 being so small it's common that the jacket is thin enough to fragment, it's less common in larger caliber FMJs. However there are plenty of other bullets (the afore mentioned 155gr AMAX) that could be loaded that produce results far better than any 5.56 round could hope to. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2005 11:45:21 AM EDT
[#10]
given similar bullet design, the 30-06 will have 2-2.5 times the bullet weight travelling at about 90-95% of the speed of .223. .30-06 will win. There is no magic here, just physics.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2005 1:24:00 PM EDT
[#11]
Energy has NOTHING to do with bullet fragmentation, velocity does. Assuming equal bullet construction and jacket thickness, a faster bullet will fragment better/ more reliable/ at all than one that is going slower. If we use military ball ammo in 30-06 (or 308, for that matter), they have a starting velocity of around 2700-2750 fps. M855 starts at around 3100 fps, and M193 at around 3250 (out of 20" barrels). The 30 calibers have far more energy, but they have ZERO fragmentation on muscle. Now, of course, change the bullet construction to something like an AMAX, and things are totally different. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2005 8:09:37 PM EDT
[#12]
Yup, I agree on that. The two advantages of the 30-06 is that it could penetrate what a 5.56mm bullet can't, and has a longer range than 5.56mm. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2005 8:13:23 PM EDT
[#13]
30-06(7.62) bullets have heavier jackets than 5.56 further retarding their ability to fragment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2005 8:33:08 PM EDT
[#14]
Uuvis -- sorry to be so late w/ reply to you. Sorry to be confusing but the words meant .30/06 at the same pressure as .308 = higher velocity for the .30/06.
Stated another way, for a given caliber, same pressure in a larger case means higher velocity for the larger-cased round (assuming you have enough barrel length, proper powder selection, etc.). Just go to factory ballistics tables for any major ammo mfgr, and you'll see .30/06 outpaces .308 at every bullet weight; these guys are all loading to SAAMI specs, in all likelihood. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2005 10:14:09 AM EDT
[#15]
Ok, these types of comments are what confuses me, especially where these thinkings come from, like 1911ar-15's post above. In my thinking, energy and velocity are the exact same thing. Energy has everything to do with fragmentation, as to get something to fragment or break, you have to apply apply enough force to the object to exceed the forces holding it together. Lowever the velocity, you are lowering the energy available to tear the bullet apart. So if you are comparing two identical bullets, velocity (which is energy) has a huge effect on the ability for it to fragment. So basically what I am reading here, fragmentation is more of a function of bullet construction than anything else. If we build bullets with softer lead cores, and thinner jackets, we should get more fragmentation, like what we see in varmint bullets. Provided we get them to angle off on impact. So toughened up varmint bullets (that don't tear themselves apart on impact with anything) should be very effective for defensive bullets right? Or more so than most hunting bullets that emphasis weight retention and penentration. Are there any/many real world papers on m193 ammo and wounds on humans from areas of confrontation? I'm really interested in this now. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2005 4:45:31 PM EDT
[#16]
You're splitting hairs. I've thought the same thing often enough. The thing is, it's easier to simply compare velocity, than to to make the calculation and the jump Energy. When testing the ammuntion, they know which bullet they are using, and then they measure the velocity. They then publish the results. You can compute the energy, but it's not needed. You know which bullet, and you know what it's velocity threshold is. Bullet X at min velocity Y. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2005 6:56:47 PM EDT
[#17]
wound or kill
5.56 or 7.62 bout that simple isnt it? Use hunting bullets, we are not held to the same rules as the military, we CAN use expanding type bullets. beware of the mushrooms |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2005 7:58:02 PM EDT
[#18]
That is assuming that the bullets are constructed identical with only scale difference in size, and tested in a vacuum. Bullet constuction alone throws many variables into the mix. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2005 8:03:19 PM EDT
[#19]
Not that simple. Care to support your oppinion, or was it just something you heard someone say once. Why would you want to use an expanding hunting bullet on a human attacker, trying to save meat for later?  I'm not big into cannabalism so I would use something that would fragment reliably and end the engagement faster.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2005 9:20:03 PM EDT
[#20]
Here comes the flame wars!!!
heh i'll stick w/ my plastic tip hunting bullets in caliber .308" thank you, dont talk about those in ammo-oricales do they? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2005 10:47:30 PM EDT
[#21]
Yeah, I know I'm splitting hairs a little, but for the same bullet type, velocity squared is energy. When comparing different bullets energy vs composition/construction seems to be more important.
I've been trying to read everything I can about terminal ballistics, and it seems ignorantly simple to assign a velocity threshold for fragmentation. I don't mean for that to sound negative in the least, but doing so seems so odd to me. For example, I see the lethality of a round to be based on many functions, working together. The more significant being the permenant cavity of damaged tissues, the temporary cavity and tissue types damaged by this effect, physical tearing by the projectile (fragmentation included, if any) of the particular rounds, depth of penetration, combined with the tissue effected. I see these in an order that places tissue effected and depth as being number one in importance, and physical tearing/permenant wound cavity as being number two, and the temporary cavity as being a number three when comparing two similar rounds. To get back on topic for WackyG, I'd say that from a generic standpoint, the .30-06 is going to be more "deadly" as the cartridge alone has more factors in its favor over the .223. Between two comparable bullets, the .223's slight edge in velocity at closer ranges is unlikely to overcome the advantage that the .30-06 has in nearly all fields. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2005 10:23:13 AM EDT
[#22]
Going back to ball ammo, the range of the target will greatly effect the bullet performance. M193 won't fragement reliable out past 200 out of a 20", etc.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2005 10:38:49 AM EDT
[#23]
You CANNOT accurately compare CALIBERS (such as 5.56 vs. .30-06), because there is SO MUCH VARIATION between the performance of individual loads, due to velocity, bullet weight, bullet construction, and so on. Therefore, only comparisons of SPECIFIC LOADS are relevant.
A military 5.56 FMJ loading like M193 will cause larger wounds than a military .30-06 loading like M2 ball, at least at close range. This is because the 55gr FMJ M193 bullet will fragment (out to a certain range), while the .30-06 bullet, with its thicker jacket, will not. Thus, comparing strictly commonly-available MILITARY loads, 5.56 is the better performer. But in a broader scope, this is an exception. Comparing the best performing (for human combat) 5.56mm round (arguably the 75gr Hornady or 77gr Nosler) vs. the best performing .30-06 load (155gr Hornady), the .30-06 is a *substantially* better performer. Again, you can only compare specific loads. Remember that experts have determined a set of characteristics that are agreed to be "ideal" for human combat, and that these performance characteristics are not necessarily those that are ideal for hunting, armor piercing, or other tasks. Don't confuse the two. -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2005 12:22:29 PM EDT
[#24]
Energy is exactly the wrong measure to be using on many many levels.
Example: The muzzle energy of a "rubber bullet" (RA49M): 402 J Muzzle energy of a typical .22LR: 133 J Muzzle energy of a typical 9mm round: ~450 J Energy of a locomotive moving .5 m/sec: 18500 J As you can see, energy is pretty useless in describing lethality due to projectile impact. I don't know why it's even used except to give the sales guys something to talk about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2005 11:34:40 AM EDT
[#25]
Austrian,
I think originally velcities were determined mathematically from energy using swinging arm pendulums before we had deviced to directly measure velocity. To say energy is the wrong unit of measure seems really odd seeing as how velocity and energy are the same thing. I guess you are saying that velocity is wrong to use to describe lethality as well, correct? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2005 12:39:07 PM EDT
[#26]
Exercise left for the student: Where is mass factored in when calculating velocity? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2005 3:29:45 PM EDT
[#27]
Velocity and energy are not the same thing. Velocity is also wrong to use to describe lethality. Examples; a 3 gram plastic sphere at 300 fps does X damage to a control surface, a 200 lb sphere at 150 fps does greater than X damage.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2005 5:04:38 PM EDT
[#28]
Energy is .5 times mass times squared velocity. So if you are determining velocity based on impact energy you need to know mass and energy and you have velocity.
Energy and velocity are functions of each other. But yes, nether will tell you lethality. I just find it odd how many people put so much faith into velocity of 55grain FMJ's into 10% ballistic gelatin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2005 5:28:47 PM EDT
[#29]
It's a lot more concrete than simply relying on manufacturers claims. I'd still like to know why bother computing energy when you can simply read the velocity off of the chrono? Why introduce error? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2005 5:55:05 PM EDT
[#30]
Ballistic gelatin has a place in the discussion of terminal ballistics. That place is that it is easy to compare the behavior of This Cartridge against the behavior of That Cartridge. All extrapolations from that data, to what a cartridge will do in a human, or a deer, has to be based on the assumptions that you hold. That does not mean that gelatin has no place. Its place is limited. However, the known behavior of the M193 cartridge is not just based on its performance in ballistic gelatin. There is also the whole mass of combat surgery reports. These give a very good picture of what the M193 will do in a human body. I find the gelatin studies to be interesting, and the combat surgery reports to be convincing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2005 6:35:02 PM EDT
[#31]
I suppose going into the backyard and shooting phone books and milk jugs or even animals may be fun, but has zero scientific value beacause it can not be duplicated with consistent results, too many variables. Balistic Gelatin is calibrated to be consistent each and every time, at a set temperature. It is the only scientificaly calibrated medium to test wound ballistics currently, that is why we like real tests. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2005 8:24:09 AM EDT
[#32]
Ok,
I guess people are missing what I was saying. I fully understand that Ballistic Gellatin is a scientifically acepted reproducable media designed to give defendable results when comparing different rounds. No one can argue against that, and it is the best thing going to test simulated wound ballistics. What I'm saying is that ballistic gel is a compromise media, and isn't really like any one human tissue. Actual bullet on real human wounds are the best data, but somewhat unethical to perform experimentally. I was thinking that it would be neat to make pseudo torsos to shoot for testing, using a variety of materials to simulate a human torso. Aside from production cost, these would be difficult to build as the human body is very different inch by inch. As to why compute energy. You are computing velocity by using a chronograph (the little chips in there do calculations to figure out how fast something is going), and computing energy is introducing no more error than what was initially recorded by your chronograph. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2005 6:47:23 PM EDT
[#33]
Whatever happned to ditching the ballistic gelatian and doing live fire on living things? I mean..........really , all this science BS really doesn't prove a whole lot in the real world. Science can tell me that at 200yds a 223 55gr bullet will provide more damage than a 180gr 30-06 bullet? I don't see the relevance ballistic gelatian has on a target. Take humans for instance ,they have bones , organs ,ect. All have various densities on different parts of the body. The same goes for animals , ect. I haven't seen many published results on true lethality of projectiles. IE : number of average FMJ rounds to take a guy down in the current iraq war from a m4 firing m855s.
I can fire all day at a tub of over-priced jell-o and say its accurate. I can fire at phone books and say its accurate. But neither really will be accurate considering you're asking for a real world answer on the damage comparison of 2 real world cartirdges , not 2 scientificly calculated cartridges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2005 7:45:37 PM EDT
[#34]
I suppose you must be typing this post on a bunch of rocks on a plank with a vine for an internet connection because you are obviously too smart to buy into that scientific method BS. I hope your bearskin tunic doesn't itch too bad. No way they would ever think to use feedback from actual shootings on living creatures to imporve the modeling from Balistic Gelatin. After all, what does science have to do with the real world, It has only given us Medicine, Electronics, Modern Transportation, Air Travel, Space Travel, Telecommunications, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Large Structures, Modern Mining and Resource Extraction Techinques and so on and so forth......... Obviously those are such inconsequential and trivial accomplishments that it is obvious those stupid scientists and engineers can't come up with a realistic model for comparing and predicting the performance of a small chunk of lead introduced at high velocity in a living being. And to think mrstickball, you have come along in only your third post and showed us the Emperor truly has no clothes. Thanks 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2005 8:47:28 AM EDT
[#35]
Just for reference:
Velocity=(distance in a given direction / time) Kinetic Energy = mass /2 x (Velocity x Velocity) I know I know - Thank you Captain Obvious 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2005 6:04:03 PM EDT
[#36]
What more do you need other than what you have seen with your own 2 eyes as damage on the animal?
Don't forget that expanding bullets are illegal in war, therefore they are not an option for our military when investigating an ideal combat round.
Since it is illegal to use expanding bullets in war, we rely on fragmentation to do the damage instead of making a .22 sized hole clean through. A "hunting" round is designed to expand to its maximum size while retaining a maximum amount of its initial mass. This means making as big of a hole as possible. Nothing to do with saving meat for later. That however is why they don't fragment. It seems to me that if you had an expanding fragmenting bullet, that would be ideal in hunting humans seeing as we are not worried about wasting meat.. Either way, if you have ever seen the damage that even a cheap Remington Core-Lokt "hunting" 30-06 round does against both small and medium/large animals, you would be a believer. I have shot everything from dogs to large deer with a 30-06. Massive destruction no matter what the animals' size. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2005 6:44:59 PM EDT
[#37]
A reading from the book of Fackler: www.btammolabs.com/fackler/effects_of_small_arms.pdf
Take a look at the wound profiles for the 7.62mm 150 grain FMJ and the 7.62mm 150 grain softpoint. As pointed out above, these rounds are ballistically identical to a .30-06 round. Short answer: a well designed 5.56 round is probably a better stopper than a 150 grain .308 FMJ round but a .308 softpoint is a better stopper than any 5.56 round. Edited to add: Take a look at this article too - www.btammolabs.com/fackler/ballistic_injury.pdf These are essentially the same diagrams but the copy is a little clearer. These articles are what convinced me to keep a couple of clips (and yes, I mean "clips") of 150 gr. softpoints loaded up for the Garand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2005 3:16:29 PM EDT
[#38]
Bullets *designed to expand* are not allowed under the various Hague Conventions. Bullets that just happen to fragment ARE allowed. This is why several BTHP Match (also referred to as OTM or Open Tip Match) bullets have been approved by JAG for military use. -Troy |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2005 8:46:25 PM EDT
[#40]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2005 8:55:40 PM EDT
[#41]
Well, I've got to throw this in. I used to shoot 55gr .223 excellerators out of my .30-06, it was essentially a .30-06 necked to .223. It's fairly obvious which is faster and has more energy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2005 3:01:22 PM EDT
[#42]
I see thread after thread of caliber versus caliber and gun versus gun, and "fragmentation versus wound cavity", and I pretty much read every single one of them, while researching in another browser various facts posted by various agencies or ammo manufacturers.
The bottom line is a bigger caliber and longer rifle is going to do the job a lot better. It is going to rip through bone and crush anything in it's path. If you can explode a bone, the fragments of the bone through the tissue and possibly an artery are going to become as much of a factor or more, than a bullet fragmenting. I shattered my leg in a motorcycle accident, and the doctor's said that (other than the car I hit at 45mph) the bone fragments almost killed me. The other thing I fail to get about these arguments is that people never seem to mention the fact that you probably have a decent chance of hitting an attacker or a target multiple times with a rifle, and also with a handgun in close quarters. Who care's about one shot stopping power unless you are a sniper, and even then you probably will be equipped with a semi-auto rifle or something so large and effective (.50 anyone?) that a follow up shot wouldn't even matter. Lets also look at the fact that unless you are engaged in insane, war-like conditions, where screaming mad mobs of religious zealots are running at you with little care for their lives and a burning hatred for you and all your kind, the average person being shot is going to go into immediate shock with the thought of "oh my God, I am shot, I will more than likely die or bleed to death" and will typically go down and stay down, and/or immediately crawl away. I guess my point is, hit your attacker multiple times with the smaller calibers, or use a round that is so large it would be impossible to not do massive damage, and even then, hit him a few more times for good measure. Nothing says "knocked the f out" more than a pastey, unrecognizable stain on the landscape. - rem |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2005 3:27:00 PM EDT
[#43]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2005 5:39:22 PM EDT
[#44]
My solution to these arguements is to just go out and practice. Ideal shot placement sure trumps proper bullet selection any day.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2005 11:27:34 AM EDT
[#45]
I am amused by folks that seem to assume that the bad guy is going to stand at attention in front of them as they shoot, so they can "score multiple hits" or "take headshots". In real life, your attacker(s) is either going to be shooting at you, which tends to disturb your aim, or will be moving around and trying to take cover.
Betting your LIFE that you will get more than one shot at him BEFORE he shoots you is not a risk *I* would choose to take. But to each his own. -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2005 6:13:04 PM EDT
[#46]
It's that 'square range' mentality, they can't seem to break out of it. We were all there at some point, IMHO it really takes some FOF training or real-life incident to break out of it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2005 6:20:50 PM EDT
[#47]
Well I suppose I could quote some articles on actual law enforcement shootings/shootouts, or some saved articles I have somewhere on homeowners defending themselves -- for example walking into thier home and startling an armed burglar. More often than not, shootings/shootouts happen under 50 meters. The individuals that survive are the ones that stay calm and quickly engage the enemy and fall back on their training.
The criminals are more prone to shooting while running away, which causes them to be extremely inaccurate. If a trained sport shooter or LEO can quickly draw, focus on the target and concentrate on the trigger pull (or perform instinctively) without trying to run or take cover, or become severely nervous, he will more than likely take the bad guy down. If he happens to have a standard rifle or sbr, he's probably going to shoot through whatever the bad guy is hiding behind and/or hit the bad guy easier than with a handgun, probably multiple times. If someone is trying to kill you, IE, that is his goal, then it is probably unlikely you will survive. It isn't possible in a non-war setting that you will be on guard 100% of the time or not have your back to the attacker at some point. I've shot at moving targets before and had quite a lot of success from both a standing, kneeling and prone position with both a rifle and handgun. I've taken a couple of tactical shooting classes and done pretty well overall. I realize that someone shooting back at you or instigating it is going to be a lot different, but if you train more than he does, you just may have a better chance. - rem
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2005 6:34:31 PM EDT
[#48]
Not always true. There are .308 projectiles that are designed for reliable frag/expansion in the 2000 to 2200fps speed range. I use these on deer out of a 7.62NATO rifle with excellent results. You may have to contact the bullet manufacturer to get the speed/expansion performance for various offerings. This is one of the big advantages to handloading. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2005 6:44:14 PM EDT
[#49]
And those would not be FMJ bullets which are very heavily jackted in 30-06 offerings and most 7.62 nato offerings.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2005 5:30:32 AM EDT
[#50]
Gun games are NOT real life. If you stand still while shooting, you're screwed. All your theories fly out the window when the first bullet heads back downrange in your direction. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
