User Panel
|
Quoted:
Seems pretty legit. Has he ever told you about how .50 BMG can only be aimed at the enemy's equipment? Was he issued a M-16 made by Mattel in basic? Does he know that the AK is better because it can use Soviet ammo or ours, but the M-16 can only use ours? Has he ever shown you a video of a sniper using a .50 caliber to blow up small, fur-covered Taliban? View Quote This, my friends, is what winning looks like. |
|
Quoted:
"The absolute nastiest round to get hit with. It can hit you in the hip and exit out your foot. That's what it's designed to do." Now I'm not a military guy but from most books I've read a common theme is that it's not so dynamic and, more often than not needs multiple hits to put a man down. B.S.? View Quote There should be a stickied thread about shit like this. Anyone posting one of these rumors (thoroughly and repeated dispelled, here on arfcom) should receive an account warning. |
|
|
I once took a shot at a man running at 8700 yds... the bullet slowed to the point where he actually caught it with his right hand and kept running. fkn crazy
|
|
Quoted:
Not disagreeing or anything, but what gun in 30-06 was still in service in Vietnam? Garand? 1919? 03-a3? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I know a guy who carried a .30-06 in the very, very early days of Vietnam. He was skeptical about the M16 and 5.56 until he saw a guy get hit by one and it turned his skull 180 degrees inside his skin. He said that later in the war he carried an M16 without reservation. Not disagreeing or anything, but what gun in 30-06 was still in service in Vietnam? Garand? 1919? 03-a3? It was an 03 with a scope. |
|
|
Quoted:
The wounding reputation of the early M-16 was due to its 1:14 barrel which just barely stabilized the 55gr round. That combination was quite devastating as the round immediately yawed upon contact. The 1:12 barrel was introduced to help accuracy when shooting in cold weather but removed some of the wounding performance. View Quote People please stop repeating this bullshit. Where is the Ammo Oracle when needed? |
|
View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone needs to Photoshop up one of those "Aw geez, not this shit again!" pictures using Eugene Stoner or Robert McNamara. http://i1323.photobucket.com/albums/u590/jon74000/stoner_zpspvfcm8zt.jpg Not bad, man.. not bad at all |
|
Quoted:
I have never put a bullet into human flesh, but I have worked with quite a few GSWs in the years I worked trauma, I always inquired as to what caliber/bullet firearm was used. Usually I was able to find out most of the info. My most vivid memory was a .45 ACP GSW to the head, ruled a suicide. When we got him he was still alive, at least he had a rhythm, but nobody home. Made an unholy mess. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It sounds about as legit as using birdshot for HD. Tons of loser dipshits are current or ex military. Lots of people go on hearsay and have never put a bullet into flesh. Caliber isn't as important as bullet structure with the right speed and energy. I have never put a bullet into human flesh, but I have worked with quite a few GSWs in the years I worked trauma, I always inquired as to what caliber/bullet firearm was used. Usually I was able to find out most of the info. My most vivid memory was a .45 ACP GSW to the head, ruled a suicide. When we got him he was still alive, at least he had a rhythm, but nobody home. Made an unholy mess. Obviously you have seen what can happen up close. There are so many variables blanket statements never apply to GSWs. |
|
Quoted:
Seems pretty legit. Has he ever told you about how .50 BMG can only be aimed at the enemy's equipment? Was he issued a M-16 made by Mattel in basic? Does he know that the AK is better because it can use Soviet ammo or ours, but the M-16 can only use ours? Has he ever shown you a video of a sniper using a .50 caliber to blow up small, fur-covered Taliban? View Quote I fell for that shit too. |
|
Your all forgetting one important fact........ that the 5.56 fired threw an AR is a accurate weapon. and any hit is a hit. taking a man off the front line .
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
I miss my old Hydromatic , all silvery and wore out as she was.... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
oh yea?!? well I shot a Ivan in Basic at 300 meters with my old M16E1 that was made by Hydromatic and knocked him flat on his back, he never got up. so there! <finger snap> I was issued my GM Hydramatic at Ft Leonard Wood in 1982. Where was yours? |
|
|
Quoted:
"The absolute nastiest round to get hit with. It can hit you in the hip and exit out your foot. That's what it's designed to do." Now I'm not a military guy but from most books I've read a common theme is that it's not so dynamic and, more often than not needs multiple hits to put a man down. B.S.? View Quote Did he serve in the chowhall? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I know a guy who carried a .30-06 in the very, very early days of Vietnam. He was skeptical about the M16 and 5.56 until he saw a guy get hit by one and it turned his skull 180 degrees inside his skin. He said that later in the war he carried an M16 without reservation. Not disagreeing or anything, but what gun in 30-06 was still in service in Vietnam? Garand? 1919? 03-a3? Browning BAR, dad's friend liked them because they would shoot through smaller trees no problem "It shoots through schools" Got yourself an 88 magnum too huh? ... Damn it, should have made it to page two before quoting. |
|
Worked in a morgue, he's not completely full of it...maybe slightly exaggerating to get a point across though.
|
|
|
I don't know if what the OP is reporting is true or not. I do know a surgeon in Houston at the Medical Center who has told me that someone who comes in with a wound from an AR is seriously fucked up and quite often dies. On the other hand if they are shot with a pistol they more often than not survive.
|
|
Quoted: SUPPOSEDLY.. from something i read once. when the m16 first appeared, it used a very slow twist rate,( 1/12, or 1/14" ) that was barely able to stabilize the bullet.. and when it hit something, it basically yawed everywhere, causing some truly massive injuries... and later they used a faster rate of twist that resulted in a less impressive wound. but, as i said, i read it once, etc. the ak 74 is supposedly pretty nasty due to a hollow cavity under the nose, which upsets the balance enough that when it hits something it yaws as well. View Quote It said that the original M16's fielded in Vietnam by the first company of rangers ( supposedly, Air Force guards got the first batch of m16, ranger company got the second. Non standard procurement channels) to field them, found the wounds to be devastating. The reason for this was the relatively slow twist rate and unstable bullet. They found that the bullet had s tendency to "yaw" after entering flesh. If the bullet turned sideways, it had a tendency to fracture at the cannular in the projectile, due to this being a natural stress point. The effect was devastating on flesh. I seem to remember reading on account of shooting a enemy in VN and someone describing the butt cheek essentially ripped off. The twist rate increased and the projectile got heavier so the bullet is more stable in flight. The yaw effect doesn't occur as much. Or... At least that's what I read. |
|
Quoted:
I don't know if what the OP is reporting is true or not. I do know a surgeon in Houston at the Medical Center who has told me that someone who comes in with a wound from an AR is seriously fucked up and quite often dies. On the other hand if they are shot with a pistol they more often than not survive. View Quote Can't argue with that. Does he work at the cancer hospital? Hahaha! |
|
Quoted:
That's what he meant, but he's wrong. Shooting someone in the leg will not cause hydrostatic shock that disrupts the CNS. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"The absolute nastiest round to get hit with. It can hit you in the hip and exit out your foot. That's what it's designed to do." Now I'm not a military guy but from most books I've read a common theme is that it's not so dynamic and, more often than not needs multiple hits to put a man down. B.S.? Absolutely BS. The 5.56 round is so effective because of hydraulic shock. When the bullet hits soft tissue, it transmits a significant amount of energy to the surrounding tissue. This sudden spike disturbs and upsets the CNS, thus incapacitating the tango...sometimes to the point of death...even when hit on an extremity. There is lots of BS out there but start reading about hydraulic shock. Hydrostatic? That's what he meant, but he's wrong. Shooting someone in the leg will not cause hydrostatic shock that disrupts the CNS. You, sir, need to spend more time at the jerky table at your local gun show. |
|
Quoted:
The wounding reputation of the early M-16 was due to its 1:14 barrel which just barely stabilized the 55gr round. That combination was quite devastating as the round immediately yawed upon contact. The 1:12 barrel was introduced to help accuracy when shooting in cold weather but removed some of the wounding performance. View Quote Another myth |
|
Quoted: "The absolute nastiest round to get hit with. It can hit you in the hip and exit out your foot. That's what it's designed to do." Now I'm not a military guy but from most books I've read a common theme is that it's not so dynamic and, more often than not needs multiple hits to put a man down. B.S.? View Quote CAN it be nasty to get hit with? Absolutely. I've seen hajj hit with 25mm that was a cleaner wound than getting hit by 5.56. On the flip side, at farther range it can just zip through and icepick. |
|
Quoted:
There should be a stickied thread about shit like this. Anyone posting one of these rumors (thoroughly and repeated dispelled, here on arfcom) should receive an account warning. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
"The absolute nastiest round to get hit with. It can hit you in the hip and exit out your foot. That's what it's designed to do." Now I'm not a military guy but from most books I've read a common theme is that it's not so dynamic and, more often than not needs multiple hits to put a man down. B.S.? There should be a stickied thread about shit like this. Anyone posting one of these rumors (thoroughly and repeated dispelled, here on arfcom) should receive an account warning. Don't worry, he's been placed on double top secret probation. |
|
Is there a person out there who is skeptical of 5.56 who would like to volunteer to be shot with it and tell the rest of us what it was like?
|
|
it really doesn't help when they actually teach that shit in basic training.
|
|
Quoted:
30-40 yards. 7 yards or HD distances even with bird shot would make for a very bad time. Plus it is less likely to over penetrate or go through your house into your neighbors like buck shot could. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It sounds about as legit as using birdshot for HD. Tons of loser dipshits are current or ex military. go watch a video of what birdshot can do to flesh at close range. Cheney shot a dude in the face with birdshot from 7 yards away. No permanent injuries. 30-40 yards. 7 yards or HD distances even with bird shot would make for a very bad time. Plus it is less likely to over penetrate or go through your house into your neighbors like buck shot could. ugggg.... this stupidity needs to die. birdshot is NEVER adequate as a defense round.... EVER |
|
He's thinking of 7n6. The poison bullet will cause an exit hole 1000 times the size of the entry wound.
|
|
Quoted:
SUPPOSEDLY.. from something i read once. when the m16 first appeared, it used a very slow twist rate,( 1/12, or 1/14" ) that was barely able to stabilize the bullet.. and when it hit something, it basically yawed everywhere, causing some truly massive injuries... and later they used a faster rate of twist that resulted in a less impressive wound. but, as i said, i read it once, etc. the ak 74 is supposedly pretty nasty due to a hollow cavity under the nose, which upsets the balance enough that when it hits something it yaws as well. View Quote M193 Fragmenatation wound - it will do the same from a 1:12, 1:9, or 1:7 twist - within the fragmentation threshold. It's a question of velocity, not of barrel length, or twist rate. 7n6 is designed similarly to our current crop of OTM rounds (with yaw induction & fragmentation in mind), with similar terminal ballistics. |
|
Quoted:
30-40 yards. 7 yards or HD distances even with bird shot would make for a very bad time. Plus it is less likely to over penetrate or go through your house into your neighbors like buck shot could. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It sounds about as legit as using birdshot for HD. Tons of loser dipshits are current or ex military. go watch a video of what birdshot can do to flesh at close range. Cheney shot a dude in the face with birdshot from 7 yards away. No permanent injuries. 30-40 yards. 7 yards or HD distances even with bird shot would make for a very bad time. Plus it is less likely to over penetrate or go through your house into your neighbors like buck shot could. Oh Jesus. And you aren't even a 13er. You've been around for 3 years and have over 8k posts, and you have never seen how many times people have been completely destroyed by physics, logic, and cold hard facts when it comes to using birdshot for HD? People who say birdshot is good for HD get destroyed on here at least 2 times a week. Birdshot WILL NOT reliably stop an attacker. Yes it can cause a nasty, shallow wound, but it has a very small chance of incapacitating the attacker. It is ALL about penetration and shot placement / hitting the CNS or heart. If birdshot was such a great close up HD round, while still having the advantage of not overpenetrating and hitting innocent bystanders, then why don't the police or military use it? Because it is piss poor at penetration and doesn't incapacitate the attacker. Even with GOOD HD ammo (buckshot, hollow points etc. rifle ammo) it is still very hard to reliably stop an attacker...why risk using small pebbles that could easily be stopped by a thick jacket? |
|
I had a Marine tell me how it was designed to bounce around in your body.
Then we went on to tell me how they tumble, which causes more damage Then he expounded on how great and magical the "ACOG" is when he was shooting bad guys in the head from 400 yards away. |
|
Being shot sucks, doesn't matter what round does it. but generally, the terminal ballistics of the M855 just put small holes right through people because they didn't yaw yet.
|
|
I saw a bunch of pictures that were taken in VN while the war was still going on, this was in the 60s the dead gooks were shot with 5.56 out of the m16 the wounds were horrific.
|
|
Quoted:
I read the same thing... It said that the original M16's fielded in Vietnam by the first company of rangers ( supposedly, Air Force guards got the first batch of m16, ranger company got the second. Non standard procurement channels) to field them, found the wounds to be devastating. The reason for this was the relatively slow twist rate and unstable bullet. They found that the bullet had s tendency to "yaw" after entering flesh. If the bullet turned sideways, it had a tendency to fracture at the cannular in the projectile, due to this being a natural stress point. The effect was devastating on flesh. I seem to remember reading on account of shooting a enemy in VN and someone describing the butt cheek essentially ripped off. The twist rate increased and the projectile got heavier so the bullet is more stable in flight. The yaw effect doesn't occur as much. Or... At least that's what I read. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
SUPPOSEDLY.. from something i read once. when the m16 first appeared, it used a very slow twist rate,( 1/12, or 1/14" ) that was barely able to stabilize the bullet.. and when it hit something, it basically yawed everywhere, causing some truly massive injuries... and later they used a faster rate of twist that resulted in a less impressive wound. but, as i said, i read it once, etc. the ak 74 is supposedly pretty nasty due to a hollow cavity under the nose, which upsets the balance enough that when it hits something it yaws as well. It said that the original M16's fielded in Vietnam by the first company of rangers ( supposedly, Air Force guards got the first batch of m16, ranger company got the second. Non standard procurement channels) to field them, found the wounds to be devastating. The reason for this was the relatively slow twist rate and unstable bullet. They found that the bullet had s tendency to "yaw" after entering flesh. If the bullet turned sideways, it had a tendency to fracture at the cannular in the projectile, due to this being a natural stress point. The effect was devastating on flesh. I seem to remember reading on account of shooting a enemy in VN and someone describing the butt cheek essentially ripped off. The twist rate increased and the projectile got heavier so the bullet is more stable in flight. The yaw effect doesn't occur as much. Or... At least that's what I read. same here. the ORIGINAL m16 rifles were supposedly feared by the vc very much, they were afraid of the "black rifle", and its horrific wounding / killing ability....... then later the twist rate was increased, and the wounding capability decreased.... something about the faster rate of spin allowing the round to pass thru more smoothly, without the explosive effect. im not saying its true... just saying its documented, and it does make some sense. a 556 spinning at 1/7 rate will be gyroscopically very stable and hard to turn and more likely to pass thru less destructively if it does not fragment vs explosively if it did fragment. ( lack of fragmenting is mentioned at longer distances and out of sbr rifles quite a bit......... vs a round thats spinning much slower, and barely able to staybilize itself, where ANY obstruction can cause it to instantly yaw out of control and fragment much more explosively at a wider range of velocity / distance . basically if WILL fragment at basically any distance, explosively, if it hits someone. even at longer ranges. i HAVE shot things with 556, fmj, ( deer heads ) at point blank range of 10 feet and seen the round punch thru, looking like you stabbed it with a ice pick, entry and exit holes were the same size........ where a soft point leaves a much larger exit hole...... and a ballistic tip basically explodes the off side totally. so, a 1/14 twist round, IMHO could very easily leave a much worse wound, MORE OFTEN, than a 1/7 twist, which would tend to punch right thru at lower velocities ( shorter barrels) / and or, longer ranges. the accuracy would probably suck, especially at longer ranges.. compared to 1/7- 1/9 twist.... but it would probably fragment much more often under a wider range of circumstances. The mentioned high lethality of the AR-15 rifle is still a subject of much contention. However, in this early report, the terminal effects of the rifle are described with considerable reverence by RVNAF commanders and their US advisors in the ARPA report:
(1) (C) “On 160900 June 62, one platoon from the 340 Ranger Company was on an operation vic. YT260750 and contacted 3 armed VC in heavily forested jungle. Two VC had carbines, grenades, mines, and one had a 4 ANNEX “A” CONFIDENTIALCONFIDENTIAL SMG. At a distance of approximately 15 meters, one Ranger fired an AR-15 full automatic hitting one VC with 3 rounds with the first burst. One round in the head-took it completely off. Another in the right arm, took it completely off, too. One round hit him in the right side, causing a hole about five inches in diameter. It cannot be determined which round killed the VC but it can be assumed that any one of the three would have caused death. … (2.) (C) “On 9 June a Ranger Platoon from the 40th nf Regt was given the mission of ambushing an estimated VC Company. The details are as follows: a. Number of VC killed: 5 b. Number of AR-15’s employed: 5 c. Range of engagement: 30-100 meters d. Type wounds: 1. Back wound, which caused the thoracic cavity to explode. 2. Stomach wound, which caused the abdominal cavity to explode. 3. Buttock wound, which destroyed all tissue of both buttocks. 4. Chest wound from right to left, destroyed the thoracic cavity. 5. Heel wound, the projectile entered the bottom of the right foot causing the leg to split from the foot to the hip. These deaths were inflicted by the AR-15 and all were instantaneous except the buttock wound. He lived approximately five minutes. … Five VC were hit, all five with body wounds, and all five killed. Four were probably killing wounds with any weapon listed, but the fifth was essentially a flesh wound. The AR-15 made it a fatal wound. … (9.) (C) “On 13 April, 62, a Special Forces team made a raid on a small village. In the raid, seven VC were killed. Two were killed by AR-15 fire. Range was 50 meters. One man was hit in the head; it looked like it exploded. A second man was hit in the chest,; his back was one big hole. ” (VN Special Forces) It’s tempting to dismiss reports this dramatic as simply exaggerated hearsay, but I do not. Naturally, these anecdotes do not make a solid and rigorous case for the .223 round having magical killing ability – only laboratory tests could do that – but I do believe they actually happened. I find it difficult to believe that the Rangers and Green Berets quoted were mistaken, and terminal effects such as they describe are possible with hits from the .223 caliber, and have been documented in other cases. When viewing pictures of some very grievous wounds caused by the 5.56mm caliber, “exploded” is definitely a word that comes to mind. This tempers the current view of 5.56mm effectiveness, broadly speaking. The ammunition used when the ARPA report was being written were pre-M193 specification, but were broadly similar to that round, except for having a somewhat better ballistic coefficient. The terminal effects of Belgian-designed M855 ammunition are comparable to this ammunition, too, meaning there is little reason to expect anything to have changed in this regard. It makes sense, then, that M855 has not been characterized in official reports as a “poor” terminal performer, but an “inconsistent” one; this is precisely the result we’d expect to see for a round with generally good yaw characteristics but still totally subject to the fleet yaw problem. Still, the conclusion that results like those in the ARPA report are possible – or even likely – does not seem like a misguided one to me. - See more at: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/02/13/weekly-dtic-ar-15-vietnam-1962/#sthash.BLxWr8r9.dpuf |
|
Quoted:
That's what he meant, but he's wrong. Shooting someone in the leg will not cause hydrostatic shock that disrupts the CNS. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"The absolute nastiest round to get hit with. It can hit you in the hip and exit out your foot. That's what it's designed to do." Now I'm not a military guy but from most books I've read a common theme is that it's not so dynamic and, more often than not needs multiple hits to put a man down. B.S.? Absolutely BS. The 5.56 round is so effective because of hydraulic shock. When the bullet hits soft tissue, it transmits a significant amount of energy to the surrounding tissue. This sudden spike disturbs and upsets the CNS, thus incapacitating the tango...sometimes to the point of death...even when hit on an extremity. There is lots of BS out there but start reading about hydraulic shock. Hydrostatic? That's what he meant, but he's wrong. Shooting someone in the leg will not cause hydrostatic shock that disrupts the CNS. Yeah but hydraulic shock will. |
|
Quoted:
ugggg.... this stupidity needs to die. birdshot is NEVER adequate as a defense round.... EVER View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It sounds about as legit as using birdshot for HD. Tons of loser dipshits are current or ex military. go watch a video of what birdshot can do to flesh at close range. Cheney shot a dude in the face with birdshot from 7 yards away. No permanent injuries. 30-40 yards. 7 yards or HD distances even with bird shot would make for a very bad time. Plus it is less likely to over penetrate or go through your house into your neighbors like buck shot could. ugggg.... this stupidity needs to die. birdshot is NEVER adequate as a defense round.... EVER That's not true. If is very effective if you are defending against Barn Swallows. The little buggers are very persistent once they get a foothold on your porch. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"The absolute nastiest round to get hit with. It can hit you in the hip and exit out your foot. That's what it's designed to do." Now I'm not a military guy but from most books I've read a common theme is that it's not so dynamic and, more often than not needs multiple hits to put a man down. B.S.? Absolutely BS. The 5.56 round is so effective because of hydraulic shock. When the bullet hits soft tissue, it transmits a significant amount of energy to the surrounding tissue. This sudden spike disturbs and upsets the CNS, thus incapacitating the tango...sometimes to the point of death...even when hit on an extremity. There is lots of BS out there but start reading about hydraulic shock. Hydrostatic? That's what he meant, but he's wrong. Shooting someone in the leg will not cause hydrostatic shock that disrupts the CNS. Yeah but hydraulic shock will. An educated man who understands science. |
|
"It takes more people out of the fight: the guy it wounds, plus 1-2 more to care for him."
|
|
Quoted:
There should be a stickied thread about shit like this. Anyone posting one of these rumors (thoroughly and repeated dispelled, here on arfcom) should receive an account warning. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
"The absolute nastiest round to get hit with. It can hit you in the hip and exit out your foot. That's what it's designed to do." Now I'm not a military guy but from most books I've read a common theme is that it's not so dynamic and, more often than not needs multiple hits to put a man down. B.S.? There should be a stickied thread about shit like this. Anyone posting one of these rumors (thoroughly and repeated dispelled, here on arfcom) should receive an account warning. Wow. God forbid we discuss something more than once. |
|
Quoted:
Ask him how many people were killed when a .50 BMG bullet went past their head. View Quote I had a buddy whose brother was in "sniper school" (in reality Army BRM). The instructor said in nam he "shot a round a foot away from a gook's arm and it ripped it clean off." I couldn't help but laugh. |
|
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.