User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 2:31:07 PM EDT
[#1]
I would choose something that fragments, but the biggest piece also expands, and it gets 12"+ penetration. There are plenty of options that do this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 2:54:05 PM EDT
[#2]
Fragmentation is fine if you don't need a ton of penetration. A bullet that expands, but holds together, has the capability of continuing on to deeper penetration.
Under ideal conditions, fragmentation works quite well, witness the pics of the dude shot in the leg with M193. As conditions deteriorate and it becomes more necessary to go through more objects/bones/whatever, then expansion begins to have the advantage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 9:42:50 PM EDT
[#3]
Flip a coin. Penetration is what does the job.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 5:42:09 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
If barrier performance is not a factor, and if one had to choose either expansion or fragmentation (I realize that there are some great bullets that can do a bit of both), which would tend to result in faster incapacitation on bad guys? In my totally inexpert mind, it seems like the fragmentation is better because the fragments weaken the tissue and cause it to tear more as the TSC expands. Anyone care to 'splain it to me? I would take the fragmenting bullet that met the FBI penetration requirements the best. But not because the reason you mentioned. I like fragmentation because it increases the PROBABILITY of a fragment striking something vital not directly in the path of the bullet. Weakening tissue so it can be damaged even further by the TC is also a plus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 5:50:01 AM EDT
[#5]
I would go with penetration almost always.
If you don't know what you're up against then penetration is better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 8:32:50 AM EDT
[#6]
Expanding.
All expanding bullets were engineered to expand and provide a reliable wounding mechanism while offering penetration. Hunting bullets have lots of time and money invested to make sure they perform reliably in living tissue Few bullets that rely on fragmentation were designed to do so. Take the Sierra Match King for instance... It is designed as a target bullet with accuracy in mind. Fragmentation was never even an afterthought in it's design, it's just something that happens some of the time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 8:54:22 AM EDT
[#7]
Expansion, no question.
For the aforementioned reason of reliability. You can engineer a bullet to reliably stand up to chamber pressure, the force it incurs while being launched through the air, and its ability to defeat several materials and still perform on tissue. You can also engineer that round to reliably expand, albeit beginning at different depths and with varying total penetration, due to density. It is possible by tailoring a number of inputs. If you want fragmentation, you're flipping a coin, and its not always two-sided. In order to get the round to reliably "explode" at an appropriate depth every time you need electronics and a depth gauge. :-) But its honestly not a science. Not to mention what the round would give up in other areas, it becomes a niche-use-ammunition. And if you target tissue density varies so drastically the round can not perform, its useless.. At least with expansion (penetration) you get something every time. The biggest concern people have is too much, but in certain circumstances, who cares? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 9:31:39 AM EDT
[#8]
I would trust expansion over frag for wound penetration.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 9:56:09 AM EDT
[#9]
not to hijack the thread, merely a question:
which rounds are recommended for expansion in 5.56? thanks |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 9:56:19 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Expansion, no question. For the aforementioned reason of reliability. You can engineer a bullet to reliably stand up to chamber pressure, the force it incurs while being launched through the air, and its ability to defeat several materials and still perform on tissue. You can also engineer that round to reliably expand, albeit beginning at different depths and with varying total penetration, due to density. It is possible by tailoring a number of inputs. If you want fragmentation, you're flipping a coin, and its not always two-sided. In order to get the round to reliably "explode" at an appropriate depth every time you need electronics and a depth gauge. :-) But its honestly not a science. Not to mention what the round would give up in other areas, it becomes a niche-use-ammunition. And if you target tissue density varies so drastically the round can not perform, its useless.. At least with expansion (penetration) you get something every time. The biggest concern people have is too much, but in certain circumstances, who cares? Expansion and penetration aren't interchangeable terms. Plenty of handgun rounds have reliable expansion but poor penetration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 11:08:14 AM EDT
[#11]
Controlled Expansion. You can get a bullet to expand at a lower velocity than it takes to make it fragment. Which equals acceptable performance at longer distances.
Also, most of the fragmenting bullets yaw, which causes them to drift inside the target. I prefer a bullet that goes where I aimed it, even after making contact. I'm still shocked that folks are fans of fragmenting bullets in this era of bonded and solid copper bullets. They (bonded/copper) really are awesome performers on flesh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 2:49:30 PM EDT
[#12]
Fragmentation disrupts the largest amount of tissue assuming one chunk reaches at least 12 inches.
Doc Roberts states in his stickied posts that the 155gr amax is the ideal 308 load for tactical unobstructed shots because it offers good fragmentation while maintianing the minimum penetration while also having a large temp cavity in the ideal 10-20cm zone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 3:56:05 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fragmentation disrupts the largest amount of tissue assuming one chunk reaches at least 12 inches. Doc Roberts states in his stickied posts that the 155gr amax is the ideal 308 load for tactical unobstructed shots because it offers good fragmentation while maintianing the minimum penetration while also having a large temp cavity in the ideal 10-20cm zone. That bullet fragments due to expansion (the plastic tip initiates expansion) than by tumbling and fragmenting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 4:45:03 PM EDT
[#14]
"Fragmentation" is actually "Hyper Expansion".
You cannot show me a projectile that has fragmented but not expanded. It is possible, however, to have a projectile that has expanded but not fragmented. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 5:56:48 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Fragmentation" is actually "Hyper Expansion". You cannot show me a projectile that has fragmented but not expanded. It is possible, however, to have a projectile that has expanded but not fragmented. Projectiles that do not have a mechanical means of nose expansion generally rely on extreme yaw to break up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:27:16 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That bullet fragments due to expansion (the plastic tip initiates expansion) than by tumbling and fragmenting. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Fragmentation disrupts the largest amount of tissue assuming one chunk reaches at least 12 inches. Doc Roberts states in his stickied posts that the 155gr amax is the ideal 308 load for tactical unobstructed shots because it offers good fragmentation while maintianing the minimum penetration while also having a large temp cavity in the ideal 10-20cm zone. That bullet fragments due to expansion (the plastic tip initiates expansion) than by tumbling and fragmenting. The cause is not really relevant. All that matters is that it occurs at the proper depth in the wound channel. Whether its from thin jackets and expansion or tumbling and fragmenting doesn't matter as long as its is consisitent and where it needs to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 7:50:00 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The cause is not really relevant. All that matters is that it occurs at the proper depth in the wound channel. Whether its from thin jackets and expansion or tumbling and fragmenting doesn't matter as long as its is consisitent and where it needs to be. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fragmentation disrupts the largest amount of tissue assuming one chunk reaches at least 12 inches. Doc Roberts states in his stickied posts that the 155gr amax is the ideal 308 load for tactical unobstructed shots because it offers good fragmentation while maintianing the minimum penetration while also having a large temp cavity in the ideal 10-20cm zone. That bullet fragments due to expansion (the plastic tip initiates expansion) than by tumbling and fragmenting. The cause is not really relevant. All that matters is that it occurs at the proper depth in the wound channel. Whether its from thin jackets and expansion or tumbling and fragmenting doesn't matter as long as its is consisitent and where it needs to be. Yes, it is relevant because mechanical expansion is much easier to initiate than extreme yaw.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 9:44:53 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, it is relevant because mechanical expansion is much easier to initiate than extreme yaw. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fragmentation disrupts the largest amount of tissue assuming one chunk reaches at least 12 inches. Doc Roberts states in his stickied posts that the 155gr amax is the ideal 308 load for tactical unobstructed shots because it offers good fragmentation while maintianing the minimum penetration while also having a large temp cavity in the ideal 10-20cm zone. That bullet fragments due to expansion (the plastic tip initiates expansion) than by tumbling and fragmenting. The cause is not really relevant. All that matters is that it occurs at the proper depth in the wound channel. Whether its from thin jackets and expansion or tumbling and fragmenting doesn't matter as long as its is consisitent and where it needs to be. Yes, it is relevant because mechanical expansion is much easier to initiate than extreme yaw. Depends on bullet design, 5.45 was designed to yaw consistently regardless of velocity variences. Likewise, some soft points are poorly designed and will not consistently expand, or require excessive penetration to do so. 5.56 (M193 specifically) was never designed to fragment, it was just discovered that it did. At first, it wasn't clear what was creating the explosive wounds, and the overriding theory of the day was that yaw was causing it. Explosive fragmentation can be extremely effective when penetration requirements are met. There are accounts, and pictures, of what M193 can do that are impressively deceptive for the size of the caliber. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 9:59:03 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, it is relevant because mechanical expansion is much easier to initiate than extreme yaw. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fragmentation disrupts the largest amount of tissue assuming one chunk reaches at least 12 inches. Doc Roberts states in his stickied posts that the 155gr amax is the ideal 308 load for tactical unobstructed shots because it offers good fragmentation while maintianing the minimum penetration while also having a large temp cavity in the ideal 10-20cm zone. That bullet fragments due to expansion (the plastic tip initiates expansion) than by tumbling and fragmenting. The cause is not really relevant. All that matters is that it occurs at the proper depth in the wound channel. Whether its from thin jackets and expansion or tumbling and fragmenting doesn't matter as long as its is consisitent and where it needs to be. Yes, it is relevant because mechanical expansion is much easier to initiate than extreme yaw. Quite true as bullets are unstable in flight. Inconsistency with yaw dependent bullets can be reduced by modifying the diameter of the open tip of the otm round. If the round was designed to fragment from rhe factory, it can reach a fair degree of consistency, which is of course the most important aspect of a round. Even the fincky 168gr SMK can be given pretty consistent frag depth by simply opening the tip to 0.05 if i am not mistaken. Dr. Roberts stated as much when writing about a design change that had occurred with the 168. Consistency counts reguardless of how the engineers make it happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 12:45:22 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
If barrier performance is not a factor, and if one had to choose either expansion or fragmentation (I realize that there are some great bullets that can do a bit of both), which would tend to result in faster incapacitation on bad guys? In my totally inexpert mind, it seems like the fragmentation is better because the fragments weaken the tissue and cause it to tear more as the TSC expands. Anyone care to 'splain it to me? ETA: to be clear, let's assume penetration is 14.0" in both cases. Lol, no offense intended at all.... but that is a million dollar question !! Both have their place... we just have to choose the right tool from the shed. Even varmint bullets will put the hurt on ... as will FMJ when they hit bones... I have to dwell on a better answer... but size matters a great deal in the answer, as well as shot placement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 1:36:19 PM EDT
[#21]
If forced to choose; expansion. It is more reliable. But, a fragmenting bullet that penetrates enough will cause more damage and more likely to drop the threat. Some rounds provide both, like the MK318.
The problem is that most fragmenting bullets do poorly with barriers. And unobstructed, center mass hits are not guaranteed. Most bonded and all copper bullets do well with barriers and do well beyond once they hit the target. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 7:03:39 AM EDT
[#22]
In this order; ALWAYS:
1. Shot placement 2. Penetration 3. Expansion 4. Fragmentation |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 1:29:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Kind of. Fragmentation can result in low penetration, which is why it is not very desirable in handgun ammunition. It seems to me that if there were a bullet that could fragment reliably and meet penetration requirements, that it would be more effective than simple expansion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 1:50:29 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In this order; ALWAYS: 1. Shot placement 2. Penetration 3. Expansion 4. Fragmentation This. Tomac |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 3:07:37 PM EDT
[#25]
I believe a good fragmenting round is much more destructive to tissue than an expanding round. But up until recently, the only options we've had for fragmenting rounds are either lightweight varmint bullets that reliably frag but offer shallow penetration...or bullets that rely on yaw/velocity to fragment, such as M193, M855 or the various OTM bullets. The problem with those are that way too many variables are involved and you often see inconsistent performance. It was for that reason that I elected to go with a controlled expansion soft point (specifically the Federal Fusion). However, the introduction of the Sierra TMK bullet available in 5.56mm pressure loads from Black Hills is causing me to revisit this subject. Rather than having to rely on bullet yaw to get the bullet to come apart, the TMK uses a plastic tip that initiates expansion, which leads to fragmentation. The end result is a short neck, a gnarly wound cavity, adequate penetration and what should be a more consistent performer based on the mechanism of fragmentation. A good bonded soft point will likely remain far superior when barrier penetration is of great concern. But the Black Hills 77 gr loads using the TMK bullet just might prove to be the ultimate round for more unobstructed shots. I haven't yet made the switch. But if the kind of performance I've seen from early testing continues, I'll most likely switch over to the TMK for home defense.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 5:10:35 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kind of. Fragmentation can result in low penetration, which is why it is not very desirable in handgun ammunition. It seems to me that if there were a bullet that could fragment reliably and meet penetration requirements, that it would be more effective than simple expansion. Penetration and fragmention are not mutually exclusive. 5.56 fmj penetrates all mediums fairly well except for auto windshield glass. It espessially does a good job penetrating steel as velocity is the main factor involved in penetrating that medium. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 10:45:31 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Penetration and fragmention are not mutually exclusive. 5.56 fmj penetrates all mediums fairly well except for auto windshield glass. It espessially does a good job penetrating steel as velocity is the main factor involved in penetrating that medium. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Kind of. Fragmentation can result in low penetration, which is why it is not very desirable in handgun ammunition. It seems to me that if there were a bullet that could fragment reliably and meet penetration requirements, that it would be more effective than simple expansion. Penetration and fragmention are not mutually exclusive. 5.56 fmj penetrates all mediums fairly well except for auto windshield glass. It espessially does a good job penetrating steel as velocity is the main factor involved in penetrating that medium. But it doesn't reliably fragment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2014 1:58:05 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Penetration and fragmention are not mutually exclusive. 5.56 fmj penetrates all mediums fairly well except for auto windshield glass. It espessially does a good job penetrating steel as velocity is the main factor involved in penetrating that medium. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Kind of. Fragmentation can result in low penetration, which is why it is not very desirable in handgun ammunition. It seems to me that if there were a bullet that could fragment reliably and meet penetration requirements, that it would be more effective than simple expansion. Penetration and fragmention are not mutually exclusive. 5.56 fmj penetrates all mediums fairly well except for auto windshield glass. It espessially does a good job penetrating steel as velocity is the main factor involved in penetrating that medium. That was my point. That the only reasons that I can see that expansion would be favored are that it is typically more reliable and that fragmentation *can* result in inadequate penetration. If you had a bullet that would reliably fragment and reliably meet penetration requirements, it seems to me that would be preferable over expansion for home defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2014 3:30:17 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kind of. Fragmentation can result in low penetration, which is why it is not very desirable in handgun ammunition. It seems to me that if there were a bullet that could fragment reliably and meet penetration requirements, that it would be more effective than simple expansion. After reading your comment... I immediately thought of the new Sierra 77 Tipped Match King. Clearly that bullet will dramatically fragment...and we all can speculate that it would be a very poor blind barrier choice. I am not sure if the 5.56 could have much more improved frag. then the 77gr Tipped Match King. Now perhaps you could improve penetration by using a dual hardness core. 
I wonder if the Mk 318 bullet is on track...just needs some more weight then 62gr. I would really like to see a 72gr version. ( yes, 72gr... the copper shank takes up a lot of case room... ), with a higher percentage of lead in the front. 
Truthfully, I think the best ( easiest ) way to get the fragmentation and penetration needed is to use a different round. The 6.8 is a great round... but suffers from the OAL of a 5.56x45.... if you could just make the cartridge OAL longer,( for more powder capacity ) say between the 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 overall lengths... I am sure it could be an excellent performing round. Use a bullet like the MK 318 or such.... and you're just about right here you want. ( Not saying 6.8 isn't good now... but in needs a little more speed for a more flat shooting round... IMHO ) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2014 6:02:03 AM EDT
[#30]
Fragmentation does produce more effective wounds, generally. If it works.
Regardless, expansion can make your TC do effective damage. Here, on page 4, Fackler describes a solid brass projectile, intended to not deform/fragment but fired backward at ~3000 FPS, 10m from a swine. The resulting wound has splits 8cm (3.15") wide and tapered down to a .22 caliber wadcutter wound. Obviously, a proper soft point could produce similar damage - albeit a little deeper in the tissue where we want - as well as not overpenetrating. Fragmentation does produce more damage - but either one will do the job if placed on the mark. The fragmenting round gives you a little bit more leeway while still being terminally effective, but nothing drastic. The little bit of difference you get is nothing compared to the benefits of being able to shoot through barriers or at greater distances. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2014 5:36:34 PM EDT
[#31]
i gotta say.....penetration is nothing with expansion or fragmentation.
case in point is any bullet traveling slow enough to pass through tissue without any disruption...like m193 below 2500fps or m855 at just about any speed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2014 6:03:32 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
i gotta say.....penetration is nothing with expansion or fragmentation. case in point is any bullet traveling slow enough to pass through tissue without any disruption...like m193 below 2500fps or m855 at just about any speed. You have that exactly backwards. Expansion and fragmentation are nothing unless something penetrates enough to either disrupt the CNS or hit major organs/blood vessels so as to cause rapid blood loss. A bullet that passes through tissue without disruption will still kill someone if it passes through the CNS or, for example, the heart. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2014 12:37:43 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have that exactly backwards. Expansion and fragmentation are nothing unless something penetrates enough to either disrupt the CNS or hit major organs/blood vessels so as to cause rapid blood loss. A bullet that passes through tissue without disruption will still kill someone if it passes through the CNS or, for example, the heart. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
i gotta say.....penetration is nothing with expansion or fragmentation. case in point is any bullet traveling slow enough to pass through tissue without any disruption...like m193 below 2500fps or m855 at just about any speed. You have that exactly backwards. Expansion and fragmentation are nothing unless something penetrates enough to either disrupt the CNS or hit major organs/blood vessels so as to cause rapid blood loss. A bullet that passes through tissue without disruption will still kill someone if it passes through the CNS or, for example, the heart. i see your point but in that case i think we are both wrong or atleast missing part of the equation. based on both our assumptions it seems likely that there are 2 parts to the equation.... you need penetration no matter what BUT you also need one of the 2, fragmentation OR expansion for the solution to work out optimally. right right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2014 1:01:14 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
i see your point but in that case i think we are both wrong or atleast missing part of the equation. based on both our assumptions it seems likely that there are 2 parts to the equation.... you need penetration no matter what BUT you also need one of the 2, fragmentation OR expansion for the solution to work out optimally. right right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i gotta say.....penetration is nothing with expansion or fragmentation. case in point is any bullet traveling slow enough to pass through tissue without any disruption...like m193 below 2500fps or m855 at just about any speed. You have that exactly backwards. Expansion and fragmentation are nothing unless something penetrates enough to either disrupt the CNS or hit major organs/blood vessels so as to cause rapid blood loss. A bullet that passes through tissue without disruption will still kill someone if it passes through the CNS or, for example, the heart. i see your point but in that case i think we are both wrong or atleast missing part of the equation. based on both our assumptions it seems likely that there are 2 parts to the equation.... you need penetration no matter what BUT you also need one of the 2, fragmentation OR expansion for the solution to work out optimally. right right? You NEED penetration. You WANT expansion or fragmentation. That's really all there is to it. Penetration kills. Is penetration with expansion or fragmentation better? Of course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2014 1:01:55 PM EDT
[#35]
What Eric802 is saying is that even if a bullet does not expand or fragment at all, so long it gets deep enough, any bullet will still result in instant incapacitation if it hits any part of the CNS. It will also usually result in fairly rapid incapacitation if it pokes a hole in the heart, aorta, vena cava, or several of the pulmonary veins or arteries. Additionally, many rifle bullets tend to cause significant damage due to the stretch cavity exceeding the elastic limits of tissue. That's the primary wounding mechanism of the rifle bullets used in both world wars. They didn't normally expand or fragment but they still usually resulted in rapid incapacitation if a soldier was struck in the torso. Expansion and/or fragmentation can increase the size of the wound and thereby increase the number of structures involved in the wound. It can also make a wider path for fluid to leak through, resulting in faster hydraulic failure. It's important to remember that it's really a fine point that we're discussing. Even .223 ammo that simply yaws and does not expand or fragment will still be more effective than pistol ammo due to the large stretch cavity. Any ammo that reliably expands OR fragments will increase that effect. Based on everyone's replies, I'm leaning towards a bullet that expands AND fragments a bit, like the Sierra 65 gr Game King.
ETA: LOL, beat by 41 seconds. If I wasn't so damn long winded.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2014 1:15:51 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ETA: LOL, beat by 41 seconds. If I wasn't so damn long winded.... Meh, you said it more/better anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2014 1:48:35 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In this order; ALWAYS: 1. Shot placement 2. Penetration 3. Expansion 4. Fragmentation |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2014 7:36:54 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In this order; ALWAYS: 1. Shot placement 2. Penetration 3. Expansion 4. Fragmentation That's been repeated a few times but the only rationale I've heard is that expansion is more reliable. Sounds like if you could have a bullet that reliably fragments, it would be a better choice for personal defense where barrier performance is a low priority. Am I missing something? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2014 10:41:05 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's been repeated a few times but the only rationale I've heard is that expansion is more reliable. Sounds like if you could have a bullet that reliably fragments, it would be a better choice for personal defense where barrier performance is a low priority. Am I missing something? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: In this order; ALWAYS: 1. Shot placement 2. Penetration 3. Expansion 4. Fragmentation That's been repeated a few times but the only rationale I've heard is that expansion is more reliable. Sounds like if you could have a bullet that reliably fragments, it would be a better choice for personal defense where barrier performance is a low priority. Am I missing something? For big game, I want a bullet that exits while causing massive amounts of internal damage. I have, in my mind, relegated fragmenting projectiles to crap we were stuck with in the military. It will be a long while, and take some serious engineering, to get me to change my mind.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2014 10:54:01 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's been repeated a few times but the only rationale I've heard is that expansion is more reliable. Sounds like if you could have a bullet that reliably fragments, it would be a better choice for personal defense where barrier performance is a low priority. Am I missing something? Barrier performance is almost always important for personal defense - bad guys tend to get behind things when being shot at.
After the neck length of a fragmenting round, you have a massive - but shallow - energy dump, and then (maybe) a core that continues. (Nose in M193, Shank in M855A1) This core causes only a .22 caliber hole at best, and often only penetrates to 12". After the neck length of an expanding round, you have a more gradual energy dump, which can extend the temporary cavity damage deeper. Further, even once the energy dump is over, you still have an above - caliber hole that penetrates to 12"-18". Consider that the a 1" difference in TC width between fragmentation and expansion is minimal. A miss is a miss, a hit is a hit. It's like the old 9mm vs .45 argument. You have to look at the whole picture, instead of just the damage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2014 1:13:36 AM EDT
[#41]
That makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2014 1:44:51 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryYou have that exactly backwards. Expansion and fragmentation are nothing unless something penetrates enough to either disrupt the CNS or hit major organs/blood vessels so as to cause rapid blood loss. A bullet that passes through tissue without disruption will still kill someone if it passes through the CNS or, for example, the heart. Thank you! Finally someone gets it. Yes, expansion and fragmentation are icing on the cake, but you have to cause that immediate incapacitating injury first which depends entirely on shot placement AND penetration!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2014 8:15:06 AM EDT
[#43]
from the test Ive seen on YouTube XM193 (as long as the velocity is adequate) makes a nasty ass wound. If using a 16" or longer barrel I think that's the way to go.
If your using ab SBR an expanding round should work better since its not as velocity dependent. Range is also a factor too but I'm referring to home defense situations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2014 9:13:17 AM EDT
[#44]
Youtube videos aren't exactly good data.
Sure, M193 does a great job sometimes. Sometimes it zips straight through. Sometimes it turns a 90 and comes out the side. That's not exactly the performance I want on an important hunting shot, much less when my life is on the line. M193 is fine for hogs or coyotes or crows or anything else you don't really care about. If the shot is important, you should get a decent bullet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2014 12:03:24 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Youtube videos aren't exactly good data. Sure, M193 does a great job sometimes. Sometimes it zips straight through. Sometimes it turns a 90 and comes out the side. That's not exactly the performance I want on an important hunting shot, much less when my life is on the line. M193 is fine for hogs or coyotes or crows or anything else you don't really care about. If the shot is important, you should get a decent bullet. High quality expanding bullets tend to perform well more reliably than fragmenting bullets. Reliability and repeatability are more important to me than potential performance that may never be realized. I don't care what a projectile can do, I want to know what I can depend on it to do and that has led me to choose quality barrier blind ammunition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2014 11:34:28 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: High quality expanding bullets tend to perform well more reliably than fragmenting bullets. Reliability and repeatability are more important to me than potential performance that may never be realized. I don't care what a projectile can do, I want to know what I can depend on it to do and that has led me to choose quality barrier blind ammunition. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Youtube videos aren't exactly good data. Sure, M193 does a great job sometimes. Sometimes it zips straight through. Sometimes it turns a 90 and comes out the side. That's not exactly the performance I want on an important hunting shot, much less when my life is on the line. M193 is fine for hogs or coyotes or crows or anything else you don't really care about. If the shot is important, you should get a decent bullet. High quality expanding bullets tend to perform well more reliably than fragmenting bullets. Reliability and repeatability are more important to me than potential performance that may never be realized. I don't care what a projectile can do, I want to know what I can depend on it to do and that has led me to choose quality barrier blind ammunition. Just as a note. XM 193 only works because of the cantalure. You see many 55 grain 5.56 by various manufactures and Ive heard of some that are lacking the cantalure around the bullet. Any fragmenting round no matter what grain relies on that cantalure as a weak point to break apart. all 5.56 is not created equal |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2014 11:53:25 AM EDT
[#47]
I would choose expansion, it makes a much larger wound cavity. A lead tipped round that mushrooms..nasty.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2014 12:08:05 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just as a note. XM 193 only works because of the cantalure. You see many 55 grain 5.56 by various manufactures and Ive heard of some that are lacking the cantalure around the bullet. Any fragmenting round no matter what grain relies on that cantalure as a weak point to break apart. all 5.56 is not created equal Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Youtube videos aren't exactly good data. Sure, M193 does a great job sometimes. Sometimes it zips straight through. Sometimes it turns a 90 and comes out the side. That's not exactly the performance I want on an important hunting shot, much less when my life is on the line. M193 is fine for hogs or coyotes or crows or anything else you don't really care about. If the shot is important, you should get a decent bullet. High quality expanding bullets tend to perform well more reliably than fragmenting bullets. Reliability and repeatability are more important to me than potential performance that may never be realized. I don't care what a projectile can do, I want to know what I can depend on it to do and that has led me to choose quality barrier blind ammunition. Just as a note. XM 193 only works because of the cantalure. You see many 55 grain 5.56 by various manufactures and Ive heard of some that are lacking the cantalure around the bullet. Any fragmenting round no matter what grain relies on that cantalure as a weak point to break apart. all 5.56 is not created equal Not true. Most medium to heavy OTM will fragment pretty reliably and most of them have no cannelure. Just one example. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2014 1:12:47 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not true. Most medium to heavy OTM will fragment pretty reliably and most of them have no cannelure. Just one example.  http://youtu.be/aSnyuw9DlvQQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Youtube videos aren't exactly good data. Sure, M193 does a great job sometimes. Sometimes it zips straight through. Sometimes it turns a 90 and comes out the side. That's not exactly the performance I want on an important hunting shot, much less when my life is on the line. M193 is fine for hogs or coyotes or crows or anything else you don't really care about. If the shot is important, you should get a decent bullet. High quality expanding bullets tend to perform well more reliably than fragmenting bullets. Reliability and repeatability are more important to me than potential performance that may never be realized. I don't care what a projectile can do, I want to know what I can depend on it to do and that has led me to choose quality barrier blind ammunition. Just as a note. XM 193 only works because of the cantalure. You see many 55 grain 5.56 by various manufactures and Ive heard of some that are lacking the cantalure around the bullet. Any fragmenting round no matter what grain relies on that cantalure as a weak point to break apart. all 5.56 is not created equal Not true. Most medium to heavy OTM will fragment pretty reliably and most of them have no cannelure. Just one example. http://youtu.be/aSnyuw9DlvQAnd there are plenty of cannelured rounds out there that won't fragment like M193. It's not the cannelure that does the trick, it's more the relatively thin jacket that M193 has. |
|
|
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.
