Thanks for the clarification. I was looking at the point at which the large permanent cavity started to form (around the 11cm mark), rather than where the actual bullet fragments began to appear. It wasn't my intention to start an argument with you, so I apologize. That said, there's really no need to be so hostile. This thread is just a friendly discussion about a very commonly used 5.56 round.

My thought too.  Blew out a bicep after a couple inches of travel

These diagrams are simplified models anyway, as the creators themselves have stated - in real life it could hardly be said that we'd only find bullet fragments after the 15cm mark in 70% of the cases, and furthermore, exactly where the bullet fragments end up is less relevant than where they started splitting off. We are primarily concerned with the damage caused, and it is readily evident that the permanent cavity increases beyond crush diameter at the 5" mark.

Regarding Dr. Fackler's negative tone regarding M193: I respect Fackler greatly, and indeed have been heavily inspired by his works, but I do believe he has a bias against the 5.56 round. In IWBA Volume 3 #4 and Volume 4 #1 he actually expresses the belief that a .45 JHP (and a late 90s .45 JHP no less - we're not talking about +P HST here) would have markedly better effects with a chest shot than .223 55 gr TBBC - utterly unrealistic in my opinion. He also goes on to say that he thought M193 was actually a better choice than said TBBC projectile and wasn't clearly worse than any other 5.56 loading, and that 5.56 was in general a poor choice better suited for varmints than the most dangerous game (and refers to a 16" barrel as ridiculously short - oh how times have changed!).

I imagine our rather cantankerous poster might have pulled that bit out of one of Dr. Gary K. Robert's postings, and as a response to the people who think M193 is the perfect bullet, it works. Yet I think Roberts himself would not agree that M193 is generally ineffective. Indeed I find his thoughts in V3#4 are much more realistic, though still somewhat outdated, and there he does acknowledge that the 5.56 carbine is a highly effective weapon that generally offers better incapacitation potential than most other firearms. That is to include the M193 cartridge, though curiously enough he more confidently endorses the M855 projectile than M193, a symptom I imagine of the article being over 20 years old.

Nevertheless it should be noted that even Fackler did acknowledge that M193 was generally more destructive and a better performer than the other military rifle FMJs of the time. In fact we see it remarked by other authors later on in 3,4 that the 55 gr ball fired out of a 14.5" barrel was observed to inflict more grievous wounds than M80 ball fired out of an FAL in an analysis of the Port Arthur massacres.

Is M193 optimal? No. Is it close enough in effectiveness to the top 5.56 loadings that there is no practical advantage to be gained with them? Absolutely not. But Molon's exaggeration and hostility was wholly uncalled for, and it remains that M193 offers substantially better terminal performance than most other military ball loadings while being the ordinary default 5.56 FMJ round. That deserves mention in my book.

Added tangent: I think this serves to illustrate that, even amongst the different terminal ballistics experts, your opinion of various rounds is likely to differ depending on whose words you read. Fackler and, I believe, MacPherson's views are pretty old fashioned - endorsement of shotgun loadings and large caliber pistol bullets over smaller calibers. Roberts's are much more reflective of the current prevailing train of thought, in that he favors 9mm and barrier blind intermediate rounds. Though I think he also likes 6.8 SPC better than either 5.56 or 7.62, especially for urban work, and I suspect that's not quite so popular among the modern crowd.

Personally speaking, my views are somewhere in between; I like the heavy 5.56 expanding fraggers out of an acknowledgement that they will generally offer more than adequate incapacitation ability while minimizing recoil and maintaining a large magazine capacity. At the same time I appreciate the large crush cavity offered by .45 hollowpoints, though I'll not say that they are superior overall compared to the smaller calibers, only that they do offer a viable terminal performance increase and are not in fact exactly the same. I suspect @cod0396 operates on a similar train of thought.

Excellent reply, 45custom.

Well let's be honest here...I don't believe any one of us would want to take a hit from an M193.

Likely the temporary stretch cavity was larger than the potential elasticity of the muscle and skin.

IIRC someone posted a close up of the spent brass from under the car dealership car and it was guessed to me Xtac PMC XM193 based on primer sealer color(red) but hold crap im NOT that good at remembering.  

FWIW though i dont think any of those bullets really slowed down between muzzle and impact.

I trust them for 16"+ barrels, within reasonable distances which leave enough velocity for fragmentation.

In short barrels, they can't be trusted to perform, and some kind of expanding bullet should be used.

If possible, you're still better off with a GD, Fusion, other JSP, etc. I got good results in water jugs with hornady 55gr JSP. I also expect that for the same velocity, an OTM will do better than a FMJ, by either fragmentation or expansion. While OTM are not designed to do so, the simple nature of being hollow affords far more opportunity.

At one point I tested some no-name 168gr .308 OTMs that I drilled out with a 1/16" bit. They mushroomed pretty well in water jugs from a 308win at 50yds, full power loads. IIRC they busted 4 jugs and perforated #5.

I need to test some VMAX. Maybe next weekend. Need to load some up. I'm short on 55gr VMAX, but have a good amount of 53gr. Frankly I don't know what difference it makes, afaik it's just FB vs BT. The 55gr SP was found in jug #3, which was just perforated, the first two grenaded. I think the vmax will grenade the first two, and might dent #3.

Much delayed double tap

I remember reading somewhere that he was using 64gr power points. That would make much more sense than 55gr FMJ, considering how quickly the bullet must have expanded, but I'm not sure how credible the source is.

That would make much more sense than it being m193. m193 usually takes centimeters or even inches before it fully fragments. That was damage similar to that from a fully fragmenting m193, but m193 rarely fully fragments that early.  Whatever round he used expanded or fragmented almost instantly, as can be seen by the fact that most of the bicep was blown away. m193 often can't fragment that early

I wouldn't want to take a hit from .17 HMR or .22LR either. They can easily kill you dead with good shot placement. Doesn't mean I would select them as a fighting round.

M193 works just fine in my SP-1 or any early version of the mini 14, or HK93.

It still fails ~15% of the time. Less than ideal, there are far better options available

I wouldn't want someone to throw chicken shit at me either
Its a bullet so yes it pokes holes it people and if those holes are in the right place they'll assume room temp pretty quick, but there are far better choices available, especially when someone Amy be able to kill or harm you while they are slowly leaking from said holes.

"Fails" is a strong word when the round round was never specifically designed to yaw early and fragment. It was just a happy accident

Completely agree. M193 has dropped more people than any other 5.56 round....by a lot.

And getting beat over the head with a rock has killed more people than any firearm has ever, but I don't edc a brick in my back pocket.
M193 is NOT reliable and there's many significantly better options

It has been extremely abundant.

It has been very cost effective.

It works extremely well inside the vast majority of practical defense ranges.

It works well for its intended purpose.

Not sure any of that equates to "obsession".

Your example is absurd.

It's extremely reliable for my needs.

Is there ammo with better ballistic characteristics? Yup.

Is M193 able to deliver the results I'm looking for out of my AR's? Without question.

This...193 sails through level 3 plate, 855/262, not so much.

You've summed up my thoughts a lot more eloquently than I ever could.  

I am not too familiar with those esteemed authors, but if what you're saying is true, then it doesn't surprise me.  There was a LOT of bias against non 30 cal rifle rounds back then.

The fact that he claimed that TBBC was a poor stopper, and that M855 is terminally superior to M193 pretty much discredits anything he ever said in regards to 5.56 terminal ballistics.  I wouldn't listen to or trust anything that guy has to say in regards to 5.56 lethality if he did indeed say that.  Totally clouded by his own prejudices.  

M193 performed more than adequately for Kyle Rittenhouse, did a lot of damage and fragmention in only a few inches of penetration of an arm.  Have seen many other M193 limb wounds that are equally nasty posted on here, even when no bone is hit like Kyles.  Not that it will work that way every time, but it seems to be the rule more than the exception from my experience.

The works of Fackler definitely reflect on when they were written. He calls a 16" barrel ridiculously short and believes m855 is better than m193. He also says that a 45acp JHP yields a larger wound than 55gr TBBC. Yes, clearly its dated, and yes not all of his assumptions are correct, but his general principles about penetration providing incapacitation  are correct.

Also, I'm not so sure that Kyle Rittenhouse used m193. Looking at the crime scene photos, his brass appears to lack annealing marks and most definitely lacks any primer sealant/colored annulus. It seems much more likely that he was using 223 ammo. Some people are saying that he was using winchester powerpoints, which at this time is still uncorroborated, as is the assumption that he was using m193

Martin Fackler actually did a ton of good work in regards to intermediate calibers and greatly expanded our knowledge base of terminal ballistics; in fact I believe he was the one to discover that fragmentation was the cause behind M193's increased wounding characteristics (relative to other FMJs) in the first place. He simply didn't have much love for the 5.56 round and I think it's worth keeping that in mind when reading editorial-type material.

I do not believe that Roberts made that comment regarding M855 out of any prejudice against M193 - like Fackler, he has been instrumental in aiding load selection, and furthermore has a fair appraisal of the 5.56 cartridge has a whole. I assume that the more erratic nature of M855 was simply not well-studied back then. Roberts has readily acknowledged its issues since the GWOT days.

https://www.theleafchronicle.com/story/news/local/fort-campbell/2018/10/02/general-david-petreaus-fort-campbell-101st-airborne-division/1434072002/

It got General David Petreaus’s attention, but it may have been M855.

Proof shot placement is key!

Molon has done a LOT of accuracy and velocity testing on a lot of rounds, and has contributed much to this site.  
I haven't seen much terminal ballistics testing done by him, but I may have missed it.  Still, it is sad to see the strife.  

I was thinking exactly the same thing.  That douchbag he popped is going to have to switch hands for date night...permanantly!  

This is a valid point.

But this is patently false.

Bonded softpoints are obviously a better choice than M193, but that doesn't mean someone's going to laugh off a torso hit from M193.

If you want a round that's affordable, available, reasonably accurate, and has reasonably good terminal ballistics, M193 is hard to beat.

Should someone have a few mags worth of bonded softpoints if they can find it in stock and afford it? Yes. If they can't, will M193 still do what they need? Yes.

Nothing false about it.

M193's damage to flesh is not consistent, so it is not reliable.

The nasty wounds of the M16 was well known in 1965 and especially after a little excursion into Ia Drang Valley in Nov 1965. One of the witnesses was an uncle and a left seater of a Huey in the 229th Av Btl. When he finally made it back home in 1966 he was talking about the terrible wounds the M16 caused. I still can see him shiver as he's describing what he saw. Parts of arms hanging by a strand of ligament, etc. It was easy to see the difference between an M16 wound and an AK-47 wound.  

Prior to this, Special Forces had been reporting how impressed they were with the performance of the rifle and its ammo. So the 1st Cav had confidence in the rifle/ammo combination. Ia Drang/LZ X-Ray was the first big operation with lots of bodies with bullet wounds and frag grenades.

Rest of the story:
When the medevac pilots refused to fly into LZ X-Ray because it was too dangerous, my uncle volunteered as did all the 229th pilots. They hauled in supplies and fresh bodies, and hauled out lots of wounded. He flew all day, went through 3 Hueys and got a DFC and Purple Heart. DFC was upgraded to Silver Star later. All the pilots performed the same duty with the same risk but two were upgraded to Medal of Honor in 2008. He was in 4 more big offensives in 1966 so he got to see more gore especially from M16's captured by the VC and NVA being used on US troops. Here's the stories of the 2 MoH 229th Av Btl Medal of Honor (2)

I just meant he mainly wrote when m855 was being adopted and standardized. That was pre gothic serpent, and 855 was being touted as superior to any other 556 fmj design. Fast forward a few years and we realize that no, it actually kinda sucks. Also in Vietnam the m193 was primarily coming out of 20" barrels, and the ammo was true m193 spec. Most modern m193 is downloaded in velocity and may not use proper bullets, leading to less or no fragmentation. m193 usually is no joke out of a 20" barely but I have seen it occasionally icepick. but for the price per round, not much matches the effectiveness of m193

the port Arthur massacre also showed the wounding potential of m193. Shooter used a colt sporter and a FAL, both loaded with fmj, 55gr m193 and 147gr fmj IIRC. The medical examiners and first responders remarked that the wounds from the 55gr m193 were visibly more destructive than the wounds produced by the 308. For what it is, m193 does perform well, its just there are better, albeit more expensive options

Edit - This isn't GD.

No round is 100% consistent.  Does that mean that no round is reliable?  M193 will tumble and fragment, within it's velocities parameters, a lot more often than it will not.

If M193 is so inconsistent, can you show me a gel test where it doesn't fragment within it's velocity threshold?  I'm sure you can find ONE if it is so "inconsistent".

Gel? No, but not wasting my time searching either.

Actual wounds in human flesh? yep.

Here ya go

Not to mention those who have experience shooting animals(like me) or people with m193 and experiencing a high failure rate. Also in the thousand + 77gr TMK ive seen shot into game or gel not one has failed to fragment

Ok, again, can you find a video WITHIN ITS VELOCITY THRESHOLD?  

Even though MEN isn't true m193 spec, and it was under the velocity threshold in that video, only 3 inches of penetration before tumbling and massive tissue damage is still impressive.

So basically m193 in a 10.5" is probably a nogo because of its high velocity requirement, and you better make sure your 55g ball is true m193 spec? Gotcha.

You're proving our point.

It wasn't "massive tissue damage" There was no fragmentation, so in living, elastic tissue that would have been a small wound.
And you prove the point by pointing out the brand and velocity threshold. For m193 to have any chance of being effective you have to jump through all these hoops, like barrel length, velocity, bullet design, jacket thickness etc. Also, velocity out of a 10.5 is fair because not all shots are contact distance, and the 10.5 simulates a shot taken at range
Ans you ignore all the people, both on this forum and every other shooting forum, who have shot living, breathing animals with m193 and had shitty results. If m193 is not reliable enough to effectively kill a 200lb deer, why would I trust it to defend my life from a 200lb human how is trying to do me harm

Here's 55 gr FMJ failing to break apart thoroughly above its velocity threshold. 4th page, under 'Heavy Clothing'.

https://le.vistaoutdoor.com/downloads/catalogs/223RifleDataBook_vol-1.pdf

This is technically Federal's .223 loading, hence not exactly M193, but it effectively duplicates M193 out of a shorter barrel.

Manufacturer gel testing can be funky, but I have personally also seen .223 55 gr ball do this in my own gel testing. Barrel length was 16", velocity was over 2900 FPS. Bullet flattened like a toothpaste tube but did not actually fissure at the jacket. This is still probably better than the bullet retaining all of its weight, but is not really regarded as proper fragmentation in the context of 5.56 wound ballistics.

M193 is quite efficient by the standards of rifle ball loadings, but it is not on the level of premium JSPs and JHPs.

M193 is only popular because it’s the cheapest military 5.56. Not because it’s even remotely the best, but for decades it out performed anything else that could be found in its price range. It has a balance the average shooter likes in cost to performance, and they get biased over it.

I wouldn’t go to bat for M193 being a top performer, but I thought another ballistic guru called out the legitimacy of the unwounded 5.56 ND story some time back.

I think its also interesting how the 55gr fmj retained 98% of its weight and only deformed the tip through the sheet meal, and how it only penetrated ~5.75" through auto glass
This document is rather old, but the testing and information is interesting, although some of the penetration measurements on page 1 appear to be incorrect

Yes, to fragment M193 has to be at a certain velocity threshold....not exactly breaking information!  And yes, if some foreign countries 55 grain ball load had a double thick jacket, or steel jacket, it will also make it less likely to fragment.  Again, not exactly news.

And as for a round tumbling causing no tissue damage, do you seriously believe that there is no tissue damaged when a round literally goes from traveling straight to standing tip over bottom?  The tissue the bullet touches somehow becomes immune because of its new orientation?  Why did the non fragmenting 5.45 round have a reputation for lethal wounds with the nickname the poison bullet?  

I guess you learn something new everyday, a round will only damage tissue when going forward through flesh, if it turns end over end like a spinning pinwheel, nothing the bullet touches will do any tissue damage.  Got it.

Not really.  The day it was invented it came out of a 20" BBL and had 200 yards of yaw and fragmentation velocity.

Today everything is 16", which gives closer to 50 yards, and a much weaker 50 yards then that 20" gave.

Out of a 10" pistol, it's pretty much muzzle-only distance.

It's still effective,  but not as much as the original Ammo-Oracle would say.

Nobody said it won't do damage, but that temp stretch cavity in the slowmo of that video was not impressive at all.

I never saw M193 in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Saw lots of M855, some MK262 and in 2012 Afghanistan had some M855A1.

For that matter I've never been supplied M193 stateside either.

I'm not so sure of that.  M855 has been in service quite awhile.

It does a number on hogs as does m855. Apparently M193 sucks when used in diagrams.

M193 velocity envelope:



All FMJ rifle bullets are subject to the 'Fleet Yaw Effect' within ~50 yards. Basically when an FMJ leaves the barrel its flopping up and down like imperfectly tossed football, and it takes ~50 yards to settle down.

Depending on what angle of the Yaw it is upon impact will effect how rapidly it tumbles, and tumbling is what initiates the fragmentation.



https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/07/28/weekly-dtic-fleet-yaw-problem-improving-rifle-effectiveness/

You can see Fleet Yaw in this video, note how the bullet is flopping up and down as it leaves the muzzle:

https://youtu.be/xCgmfbAbP-Q?t=63

The Fleet Yaw effect is why there were mixd reports on the 'stopping power' of the M16/M4 in Iraq and Afghanistan in close quarters combat. Sometimes the yaw would result in the bullet icepicking through a thin insurgent before it could fragment. Othertimes, when the yaw was good, results were instant incapacitation.

Solving the Fleet Yaw effect is what lead to the development of MK318 and M855A1, which are yaw independent. Likewise, JHP, JSP's, and ballistic tip projectiles are all yaw independent. The only thing that effects those sorts of projectiles is impact velocity.

Its not worth arguing with the idiots on this forum. Im only posting here again because you came back. Dont let the idiots drive you off again.

I dont even read other posts that arent presenting data like you, Leid or good velocity stuff like Eagle.

Treat these idiots like M193 cultists. Nothing you can say or do will change their mind because they worship at the altar of M193.