Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/23/2005 9:40:31 PM EDT
We all know that the effectiveness of the 5.56 round is greatly increased by the fragmenting properties of the bullet at high velocities. Fragmentation causes a much larger wound cavity and I higher probability of damaging the central nervous system, which will immediately incapacitate the target. If the CNS is not damaged, the target will be incapacitated over time by bleeding out. Obviously, instant incapacitation via CNS damage is preferred at very short ranges because it immediately eliminates the threat, whereas a non CNS damaging hit will still give the target a chance to shoot/stab/explode you before he dies.

However, how important is instant incapacitation at longer ranges than "contact distance" (for my purposes, I will consider "contact distance" the distance at which a target can point shoot at you or physically reach you with momentum from sprinting; i.e. a room in a house). If you hit the target in the upper torso at distance requiring aimed fire, I would think he would be out of the fight, whether the bullet fragments or not. Even if it was only a .22 caliber hole, he is still bleeding out (very traumatic to the target, if nothing else) and has probably lost the use of an arm (i'm talking about non-CNS, upper torso hits). How combat effective would this person be? He could not effectively aim a rifle or fire an RPG at you. What's it matter if you dies a second after being hit or a minute after being hit as long as he's out of the fight?

I ask this because of the talk about velocity/fragmentation out of 11.5/14.5/16/20 inch barrels. Everyone knows how important fragmentation is at short range (all of these barrel lengths will cause fragmentation) but does it matter if it stops fragmenting at 50/100/150 yards?

Let me make it clear that I am asking because I don't know. I have never shot anyone or been shot at. I have just been wondering about this and would like to hear from experienced people on this board.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 9:56:44 PM EDT
95% of combat infantry engagements take place at under 100 yds and of that 75% take place well under 50 yds.11.5 will give 2700 fps the velocity needed for fragmentation out to65 to 70 yds a 14.5 110 yds maybe a bit more 16" out to 150 and 20" 200yds.Fragmentation though isnst an exact occurance as body mass and other factors will contribute to this.Hope fully this thread wont get locked as this subject comes up 3 or 4 times a week and the dupe thread police are around
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 9:58:58 PM EDT
I'm not asking if it will fragment, I'm asking if it matters past 20 yards (even if you're engaging target at 100 yards).
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 11:56:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 11:59:21 PM EDT by Charging_Handle]
It matters to me less the farther away the target is. But I'd prefer any ammo I use from 0-100 yds to be very effective.

Even a wounded person who's still conscious is a serious danger to you if they have a long gun and are within that distance. You can't count on them simply giving up just because they've been hit. In some cases, wounded people fight twice as hard at that point.

Obviously the danger increases dramatically as you move toward CQB distances for the obvious reasons. Think of two guys fighting with knives in a phone booth. But I still consider anything within 100 yds to be a serious threat.

Luckily, all the ammo I use does well from 0-100 yds, including M193, Black Hills 68 gr OTM and Hornady TAP 75 gr OTM. I prefer the longer OTM bullets at all ranges really, because they increase fragmentation range over most other loads and offer a better wounding effect at all ranges. Even at distances beyond fragmentation range, they still yaw sooner than M855 for example. And because the bullets are longer, they do more damage.

So IMHO, the OTM's offer the best of both worlds....most dramatic fragmentation and damage at close range.....extended fragmentation range and the longer bullets cause more damage beyond fragmentation range than the shorter bullets.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 4:30:18 AM EDT
Yes it matters. History is full of war heros who killed lots of enemy soldiers after being hit one or more times. Many times this was done using crew served weapons or engaging in long range fire. If people can not notice they were hit and have to have the blood pointed out to them I think its fair to say that a person could put accurate fire in your direction fairly easily. Drugs and adrenaline can easily allow someone to keep going afoter being hit. It happened in Somalia over and over. Did you not read Black Hawk Down?
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 6:29:53 AM EDT
If you shot him, he can damn well shoot you in the three minutes he has to bleed to death. It matters.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 7:08:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 7:13:31 AM EDT
Additionally, you've got insurgents in Iraq shooting themselves up with body numbing drugs before battle (novicane, morphine, etc.), so as stated the most capable combo would be ideal, ideal being the key word. Ideal meets the real world every day, and ideal usually loses in one way or another.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 1:28:37 PM EDT
I didn't have time to read the other responses but saw the post and had to respond.

Simply put: It matters.

To think that the guy is automatically out of the fight simply because he's been shot is a dangerous assumption. Recently a b/g was shot twice and continued to "terrorize" the public and police for another 4 hours before he started to become light headed from blood loss. He's still alive and facing charges. Luckily he didn't kill anyone over the four hours time he was hit, but not down and out!

The faster you can stop someone from doing wrong the better.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 8:13:34 PM EDT
Thanks for the replies everyone. This is exactly the info I was looking for.
Top Top