Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/28/2003 9:21:54 AM EDT
Trying to settle an argument.
We were wondering, simply, how deadly a .223 is to a human, and is that what most SWAT teams use?

The Virginia snipers basically killed everyone with one shot so I assume its one amazingly deadly round for humans. Is it true that the
bullet tumbles on impact?
Thanks.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 9:29:53 AM EDT
223 is not a very powerful round by any means. In most states its way to small to hunt with. but you got to think that those 2 fucking POS where shooting unsuspecting children at close range. but to answer your question the 5.56mm with certain ammo does yaw. As to swat using it You realize that killing someone and stopping someone are two different things right???
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 9:37:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2003 9:38:23 AM EDT by Hydro]
Well, maybe I should have asked it this way. At a range of say 20 yrds and with a hit in the torso somewhere, how deadly is the .223 to the human body? And I know thats very short range. What do you mean by YAW?
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 9:41:05 AM EDT
i have a feeling it would hurt. you wouldnt happen to work for HCI or VCP internship would you?[:D] kidding. i dont know how it works on people, but it makes a raggy hole in paper at 20 yrds.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 9:43:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2003 9:51:52 AM EDT by 8531sgt]
The 223 is not more deadly than any other rifle round, due to the light weight of the bullet, which is the equivelant of a varmit/small game, when encountering an object is destabilised easily, even breaking up depending on the density of the target. Any bullet, when fired at a human is deadly. Yes, most swat AR looking rifles are 223. @ 20 yds? It'd hurt you plenty, kind of a silly question isn't it? You obviously have the internet, this info is available through search engines that will give you FBI and DoD studies on the effectiveness of the 223 vs 308 vs whatever. Asking this type of question on your first post without even a hello really looks like you're looking for something you're not going to find here.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 9:47:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 1911greg: 223 is not a very powerful round by any means. In most states its way to small to hunt with. but you got to think that those 2 fucking POS where shooting unsuspecting children at close range.
View Quote
um...The kid was one of the few that lived. Most were adults and the shots were taken at 75 to 100 yards. -HS
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 9:54:26 AM EDT
It's all about shot placement. A .22LR is a deadly round with the correct shot placement. Many people are shot and killed by a .22LR every day as it is one of the most used chamberings by criminals mainly because the firearm itself is cheap and easy to conceal. The 5.56 or .223 was adopted by the military because it is a high-velocity light-weight bullet and this was thought to provide adequate stopping power for our enemies. Also, the cartridges themselves are very small and lightweight making for the ability to carry more ammunition into combat. SWAT uses the M4 mainly because it is a military weapon and there are plenty of them available at a reasonable cost. .223 has also shown in tests to have little over-penetration; a big concern for SWAT.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 10:16:36 AM EDT
[url]http://www.ammo-oracle.com/[/url] [url]http://ar15.com/forums/announcement.html?b=3&f=16&id=178[/url]
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 10:41:56 AM EDT
I think Al Pacino used a .223 in "HEAT". [peep]
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 10:47:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Cypher214: It's all about shot placement. A .22LR is a deadly round with the correct shot placement. Many people are shot and killed by a .22LR every day as it is one of the most used chamberings by criminals mainly because the firearm itself is cheap and easy to conceal. The 5.56 or .223 was adopted by the military because it is a high-velocity light-weight bullet and this was thought to provide adequate stopping power for our enemies. Also, the cartridges themselves are very small and lightweight making for the ability to carry more ammunition into combat. SWAT uses the M4 mainly because it is a military weapon and there are plenty of them available at a reasonable cost. .223 has also shown in tests to have little over-penetration; a big concern for SWAT.
View Quote
what he said.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 11:08:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2003 12:23:32 PM EDT by EladEflow]
Originally Posted By 1911greg: 223 is not a very powerful round by any means. In most states its way to small to hunt with. but to answer your question the 5.56mm with certain ammo does yaw.
View Quote
I think you're a little confused about any stabilized projectile (Bullets) will yaw once it impacts a soft/hard target and begins penetrating/passing through. The thing about 5.56 is that its a LMHV (Low mass High Velocity) round and at the velocities it's at when it starts this yawing motion it starts tearing apart and fragmenting normally creating some nasty tissue damage and large permanent cavities. So at fragmenting velocities 5.56 is a VERY deadly round.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 11:16:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 8531sgt: The 223 is not more deadly than any other rifle round, due to the light weight of the bullet, which is the equivelant of a varmit/small game, when encountering an object is destabilised easily, even breaking up depending on the density of the target. Any bullet, when fired at a human is deadly. Yes, most swat AR looking rifles are 223. @ 20 yds? It'd hurt you plenty, kind of a silly question isn't it? You obviously have the internet, this info is available through search engines that will give you FBI and DoD studies on the effectiveness of the 223 vs 308 vs whatever. Asking this type of question on your first post without even a hello really looks like you're looking for something you're not going to find here.
View Quote
Hello [wave] I'm just trying to settle an argument really. I believe there is no way a human can survive a shot in the torso from 20 yrds, period. Am I right? Aslo, isn't it true that the velocity of a projectile is what really determines the damage factor? I mean if you get hit with a .22 cal bullet from a handgun in the chest you could walk away. But if that same bullet is traveling at 2,700 fps, YOU ARE DEAD 100% of the time, RIGHT????
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 11:28:02 AM EDT
It sounds like you need to do a lot of research you're not going to find everything you need in this thread. It's not all about velocity and size of the round. It's about bullet composition, velocity, mass, diameter, and other properties of the round. You definitely need to visit [url]www.ammo-oracle.com[/url]
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 11:31:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Hydro: I mean if you get hit with a .22 cal bullet from a handgun in the chest you could walk away. But if that same bullet is traveling at 2,700 fps, YOU ARE DEAD 100% of the time, RIGHT????
View Quote
No such thing as 100% kill rate from any caliber to the torso, 'cept maybe .50BMG and larger. Too many variables in both environment and individual physiology.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 11:42:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Hydro: Aslo, isn't it true that the velocity of a projectile is what really determines the damage factor?
View Quote
"damage factor" and "stopping power" are an attempt to quantify the effectiveness of a given round, regardless of shot placement. That being said, shot placement is still the most important factor in wounding.
I mean if you get hit with a .22 cal bullet from a handgun in the chest you could walk away. But if that same bullet is traveling at 2,700 fps, YOU ARE DEAD 100% of the time, RIGHT????
View Quote
There are no guarantees in life. Someone could take a hit from a .223 in the fragmentation regime (2700+ ft/s) and still live if the wound cavity didn't impinge on the heart or spine. You only start getting into the "100%" range with 30mm or so, and that's only because the wound cavity is equal in size to the chest cavity... BTW, asking about such a macabre topic in your first post is not likely to earn you very many friends around here.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 12:01:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By HillBillySasquatch:
Originally Posted By 1911greg: 223 is not a very powerful round by any means. In most states its way to small to hunt with. but you got to think that those 2 fucking POS where shooting unsuspecting children at close range.
View Quote
um...The kid was one of the few that lived. Most were adults and the shots were taken at 75 to 100 yards. -HS
View Quote
Oh woops, still 75-100 yards is pretty close for a rifle, "sniper" my ass these guys weren't even good shots.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 12:18:11 PM EDT
You seem to be contadicting yourself now, at 75 and 100 yards these guys weren't making "good shots" in your opinion but the "weak" 5.56 was still putting them down for good with one shot? My deepest condolences to all of the families that lost members in those troubling weeks.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 12:18:15 PM EDT
I'm a smellin' something, fellas.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 12:21:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: I'm a smellin' something, fellas.
View Quote
I don't think I'm smelling the same thing you're smelling just seems to be some kids who have come to the wrong place looking for information to settle a juvenile argument that they really know nothing about "yet," but if we can inform them while they're here why not?
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 12:24:45 PM EDT
This would be the 3rd retarded thread Ive read so far today....
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 12:30:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EladEflow:
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: I'm a smellin' something, fellas.
View Quote
a juvenile argument that they really know nothing about "yet," but if we can inform them while they're here why not?
View Quote
God, I'll be glad when this damn holiday BS is over with and the kids are back in school!
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 12:37:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By pale_pony:
Originally Posted By EladEflow:
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: I'm a smellin' something, fellas.
View Quote
a juvenile argument that they really know nothing about "yet," but if we can inform them while they're here why not?
View Quote
God, I'll be glad when this damn holiday BS is over with and the kids are back in school!
View Quote
I started out here as just as stupid kid as well, I think I've learned a lot since then and I'm not afraid of being contradicted and slammed when I had my .02 so I normally do. I think some of you old timers need an enema this Holiday season or something! [:P] I just hate the people that bring this stuff to the forums it doesn't belong in or the one who fail to do ANY research then go on to post in the wrong board. Ok I'm done with this thread. I've whored it up enough [;)]
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 1:51:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2003 1:52:49 PM EDT by Hydro]
Originally Posted By EladEflow:
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: I'm a smellin' something, fellas.
View Quote
I don't think I'm smelling the same thing you're smelling just seems to be some kids who have come to the wrong place looking for information to settle a juvenile argument that they really know nothing about "yet," but if we can inform them while they're here why not?
View Quote
Well, I'm no kid. I'm a 34 yr. old commercial pilot that has been around guns his whole life. I'm not gonna be the next sniper. We were actually arguing about the fact that John Allen Muhammad (sniper) gets to choose his method to be put to death. The thread kind-a got strayed off topic into what I'm asking about here. 75-100 yrds is a pretty damn good shot to me, especially when they were almost all single kill shots. The boy lived because he was grazed in the belly. If it was a direct hit he would have been dead. It seems to me that the .223 is one seriously deadly bullet. Not like a .308 or 7mm, but its no match for a human. .22 cal handguns, .38's, 9mm, yeah, people live all the time from those because of there MUCH slower velocity. You never hear of people living from direct hits from any high-powered rifles. One thing I did learn in physics class, using a bullets impact as the discussion, is [b]precussion.[/b] The faster a projectile is going the more damage it will do, period. Hell, a molecule traveling at 17,000 miles will evaporate a 3-inch whole in a human body as it passes through it. Thats been tested at NASA for obvious reasons. Proving that speed is the MOST important variable in the [b]damage[/b] department. Have any of you guys seen what happens to a brick wall when hit by an egg traveling at 600 mph, it disintegrates the brick in about a 1 foot diamter and about 1 foot deep. You couldn't do that if you if you through a steel 10 lb shotput at it at 20 mph. As Bruce Lee says: "Speed is the key". It definitely ain't size or mass. Those are just other variables. Obviously if you have a faster and bigger projectile, things will be even worse.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 4:01:48 PM EDT
Other than the usual trauma caused by poking holes and busting up bones, high velocity rounds also cause damage through hydrostatic shock. When a projectile hits at speeds exceeding the speed of sound, there will be an ultrasonic shockwave that transfers to the medium it hits. Years ago I read an article where a Vietnamese soldier was found dead, however the only mark on him was part of a finger on his left hand was missing. It was determined that hydrostatic shock caused tissue damage all the way up his arm and stopped his heart. What's the probability of the effect of this shot ever being repeated?
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 4:37:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Moondog: Other than the usual trauma caused by poking holes and busting up bones, high velocity rounds also cause damage through hydrostatic shock. When a projectile hits at speeds exceeding the speed of sound, there will be an ultrasonic shockwave that transfers to the medium it hits. Years ago I read an article where a Vietnamese soldier was found dead, however the only mark on him was part of a finger on his left hand was missing. It was determined that hydrostatic shock caused tissue damage all the way up his arm and stopped his heart. What's the probability of the effect of this shot ever being repeated?
View Quote
Sorry, but that is pure nonsense. Read Dr. Martin Facklers articles pinned up I believe in the Ammo Forum. Tissue is elastic and will return to its original location. Only tissue that is directly torn by the bullet or bullet fragments (5.56 M193 above 2600-2700 fps) is damaged. While there is hydrostatic shock, it is only in friable tissue that you get damage from that. That would include brain, liver, spleen and kidney. A bullet hitting someones finger will do no more than damage the finger.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 4:42:15 PM EDT
Hydro, Please take az-ar and EladEflow's advice and read through [url]www.ammo-oracle.com[/url]. It really does have all the answers to your questions.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 5:16:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hydro: Trying to settle an argument. We were wondering, simply, how deadly a .223 is to a human, and is that what most SWAT teams use? The Virginia snipers basically killed everyone with one shot so I assume its one amazingly deadly round for humans. Is it true that the bullet tumbles on impact? Thanks.
View Quote
Any bullet is perticularly deadly to any living organisim if it penetrates the skull... It doesn't 'tumble' on impact, it fragments. The reason for this is that .223 is a long, tail-heavy bullet, and when it slows down (i.e. from hitting something), it rotates into a tail-first position due to weight distribution. This causes the bullet to break into pieces, ergo fragmentation. The DC goons were shooting from close range with a bipod and scope, while hiding in a car trunk. This allowed them to take their time, and each incedent involved a single shot. Some victims were killed, others went to the hospital & lived... It all depends on where the shot hits. Your average deer rifle (scoped bolt-action in 308 Winchester) is more 'sniper-like' than the AR15, and has a much longer effective range in the hands of a trained user. The reason that the DC guys used an AR is simple: [b]Muhammad learned to shoot in the US Army, he was trained to shoot M16s (likely the sum total of his rifle experience), so when he wanted to shoot people with a rifle, he bought (um, duh) a M16-style rifle!!![/b]. The actual military sniper rifle (M-24) is a souped up Remmington 700PSS in .308 Winchester (basically a Wal-Mart deer rifle on steroids), and it's accurate to about 800-1000m. The AR's practical range limit with military ammo is about 300m or so... As for SWAT, there has been a recent trend away from 9mm submachineguns (MP-5s) toward M4s (small M16s) for police use. The reason for this is two-fold: (1) rifle rounds (including .223) are more effective against body armor than pistol/carbine rounds (9mm, 40S&W, 45ACP), and (2) 9mm fired out of a SMG/rifle goes through walls MUCH easier than .223, and is thus more of a danger to bystanders.. So to be safer, and to be more effective against body armor, they switch to the M16 system & .223.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 5:16:34 PM EDT
75-100 yrds is a pretty damn good shot to me, especially when they were almost all single kill shots.
View Quote
[rolleyes] Oh yes, I almost forgot...... [:K]
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 5:49:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2003 6:08:45 PM EDT by Hydro]
Originally Posted By C-4: Sorry, but that is pure nonsense. Read Dr. Martin Facklers articles pinned up I believe in the Ammo Forum. Tissue is elastic and will return to its original location. Only tissue that is directly torn by the bullet or bullet fragments (5.56 M193 above 2600-2700 fps) is damaged. While there is hydrostatic shock, it is only in friable tissue that you get damage from that. That would include brain, liver, spleen and kidney. A bullet hitting someones finger will do no more than damage the finger.
View Quote
Wrong man. The body is made up of 80% water, as you MAY know, water is not compessable. The Aorta will come apart and/or rupture from MUCH less shock trauma than a bullet can dish out. Also, the more arteries, veins and capillaries that are damaged, the deadlier it is. People, like Princess Diana, get ruptured and ripped Aorta's from car accidents. Some people have died after just falling on something and ruptured there Aorta. THEREFORE, a missile traveling through the body at a high rate of speed will displace eveything around the missiles path causing a shockwave to begin. If a main artery is in that close vicinity, its history. Thats why bullet wounds to the stomach were so deadly in the Cowboy days, the main artery that runs across the stomach would always get ruptured. To prove my thoery to be 100% correct, shoot a 1 gallon milk jug full of water with a .22 cal handgun, and than shoot it with a 7mm. My buddy's father did this and it will amaze you how differnet it is. The frontal area of the bullet is basically identical, mass doesn't mean anything. The velocity DOES mean everything. The .22 cal just went through and made water shoot out of the top (water had to get displaced somewhere), and it had time to go out the top without hurting the jug at all. The 7mm, with its rediculous velocity displaced that water so rapidly it literally shredded the jug when all the water pushed its way outward against the walls of the jug. Water went shooting outward in like a 20 foot diameter. A diver jumps off a pools edge and slips into the water nicely because the water is able to be displaced slowly. That same diver jumps off the Empire State Building into a deep pool and his head will break into 1,000 pieces because the water did not have time to move. And since water cannot be compressed its just like hitting cement. Same thing with a plane, as it accelerates more and more it has to push more and more air out of the way (air is a fluid by definition), [b]we call it a shock wave[/b]. As a bullet hits a body it causes one hell of a shock wave as it travels through it, [b]that causes the massive damage[/b]. By the way, do you own a C4 Vette? Is that why your name is C4?
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 5:56:15 PM EDT
You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? Alot of members here can make 100 yd. headshots with irons. They were using a scope.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 6:08:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DEERSNIPER: You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? Alot of members here can make 100 yd. headshots with irons. They were using a scope.
View Quote
Enough about snipers, get back to the topic about velocity as it relates to damage.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 6:11:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DEERSNIPER: You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? Alot of members here can make 100 yd. headshots with irons. They were using a scope.
View Quote
My sentiments exactly, this question of fucking stupid.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 6:13:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DEERSNIPER: You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? Alot of members here can make 100 yd. headshots with irons. They were using a scope.
View Quote
And read the ammo oracle!
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 6:13:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hydro:
Originally Posted By DEERSNIPER: You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? Alot of members here can make 100 yd. headshots with irons. They were using a scope.
View Quote
Enough about snipers, get back to the topic about velocity as it relates to damage.
View Quote
You are the one who brought up snipers in the first place.
75-100 yrds is a pretty damn good shot to me, especially when they were almost all single kill shots.
View Quote
Remember that brilliant statement you made??? You don't know shit about guns if you think 100 yards is an impressive shot on a human. Moron
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 6:22:28 PM EDT
You seem to be overlooking the fact that a 22lr is about 28 grains bullet weight and a 7mm bullet is about 160 gr. Therefore a 7mm at 3000 fps has a whole lot more kinetic energy at 100 yds than does a 22. And if you were able to get the same energy out of the 22 by increasing the speed the low mass of the projectile would shed it's energy rapidly leaving you with little "knockdown" or penetration into solid targets. Bullet performance IS NOT just speed but the combination of speed, mass of the bullet, sectional density of the projectile, ballistic properties of the bullet and density of the target.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 6:31:05 PM EDT
I think everyone needs to back off Hydro, like him I forgot that they were using a scope. He's a noob guys remember, he just needs to read through the ammo-oracle and spend some more time around here. I don't think we should be getting so harsh just yet, you guys act like he's just Milsurp on another account.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 6:33:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EladEflow: I think everyone needs to back off Hydro, like him I forgot that they were using a scope. He's a noob guys remember, he just needs to read through the ammo-oracle and spend some more time around here. I don't think we should be getting so harsh just yet, you guys act like he's just Milsurp on another account.
View Quote
Hey, if it looks like a horse and has stripes, 9 out of 10 times is a zebra.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 6:37:27 PM EDT
OK, I'll waste a post on this. Hydro...both you and moondog are absolutely, totally, without a doubt, FULL OF SHIT. The human body is not a milk jug full of water, and if you shoot somebody's little finger, a shockwave is not going to travel up their body and kill them. I think you two would be better served by dishing your crap at a gaming forum whose inhabitants believe that a single shot anywhere will kill you (just like in the game! [:O]) People have tried to educate you, Hydro...yet with 6 posts (and an obvious grasp of wound ballistics [rolleyes]) you decide to turn things around and tell them that they are wrong. How many people have you seen "pop like a milk jug" when they are shot? None? I wonder why? Maybe it's because human organs ARE ELASTIC, unlike water jugs? The links gave you all the info you need. Read them. They are factual and based upon years of research and experimentation. They aren't, however, based upon some schmuck in the backyard shooting his 7mm at a water jug yelling "Hey y'all! Watch this!" Oh...I've got to add [:K]
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 6:44:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2003 6:52:24 PM EDT by Cato556]
It depends GREATLY on the type of bullet used. For the military (who are only allowed to use non-expanding bullets), a .556 round is particularly effective because it sometimes fragments after yawing in a soft target at close range (even though almost all military rifle bullets yaw). HOWEVER, using expanding bullets (like all civilian hunting rounds), larger (more “politically correct”) rounds like 30-06' and 7mm are FAR more deadly than any .556 round (military FMJ or expanding type). The reason that .556 is so popular with SWAT is that it has low recoil, while still being generally more effective than pistol calibers. Also, velocity is no more (or less) important than bullet size and construction in determining lethality.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 6:50:26 PM EDT
Ok after re-reading the thread carefully, I concur with you and Brouhaha.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 6:52:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2003 7:08:57 PM EDT by DEERSNIPER]
Hey idiot, it's 5.56mm. It is more effective than 99% of pistols. NOT "generally effective" but MORE effective. And it "sometimes fragments after yaw at close range"? With a 20" barrel, the 5.56mm will fragment at something like 200-250 yards. Go back to your games. Edit for better info.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 6:53:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hydro:
Originally Posted By C-4: Sorry, but that is pure nonsense. Read Dr. Martin Facklers articles pinned up I believe in the Ammo Forum. Tissue is elastic and will return to its original location. Only tissue that is directly torn by the bullet or bullet fragments (5.56 M193 above 2600-2700 fps) is damaged. While there is hydrostatic shock, it is only in friable tissue that you get damage from that. That would include brain, liver, spleen and kidney. A bullet hitting someones finger will do no more than damage the finger.
View Quote
Wrong man. The body is made up of 80% water, as you MAY know, water is not compessable. The Aorta will come apart and/or rupture from MUCH less shock trauma than a bullet can dish out. Also, the more arteries, veins and capillaries that are damaged, the deadlier it is. People, like Princess Diana, get ruptured and ripped Aorta's from car accidents. Some people have died after just falling on something and ruptured there Aorta.
View Quote
Wow did all those people experience "hydrostatic shock"? If not I don't see the correlation.
THEREFORE, a missile traveling through the body at a high rate of speed will displace eveything around the missiles path causing a shockwave to begin. If a main artery is in that close vicinity, its history.
View Quote
I haven't seen any hard evidence to support this theory.
To prove my thoery to be 100% correct, shoot a 1 gallon milk jug full of water with a .22 cal handgun, and than shoot it with a 7mm.
View Quote
LOL Yes from now on I will base all my opinion about the ballistic performance of any ammunition by shooting milk jugs. By the way, I could punch the milk jug with enough force to explode it, doesn't mean I'm going to rupture your arteries by punching you in the chest.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 6:54:29 PM EDT
cato wrote: a .556 round
View Quote
No shit?? I didn't know the ar shot a .55 caliber bullet. Holy shit batman, thats gonna leave a mark.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 6:55:22 PM EDT
IBTL [:D]
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 6:59:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2003 7:01:52 PM EDT by C-4]
Originally Posted By Hydro: Wrong man. The body is made up of 80% water, as you MAY know, water is not compessable. The Aorta will come apart and/or rupture from MUCH less shock trauma than a bullet can dish out. Also, the more arteries, veins and capillaries that are damaged, the deadlier it is. People, like Princess Diana, get ruptured and ripped Aorta's from car accidents. Some people have died after just falling on something and ruptured there Aorta. THEREFORE, a missile traveling through the body at a high rate of speed will displace eveything around the missiles path causing a shockwave to begin. If a main artery is in that close vicinity, its history. Thats why bullet wounds to the stomach were so deadly in the Cowboy days, the main artery that runs across the stomach would always get ruptured. To prove my thoery to be 100% correct, shoot a 1 gallon milk jug full of water with a .22 cal handgun, and than shoot it with a 7mm. My buddy's father did this and it will amaze you how differnet it is. The frontal area of the bullet is basically identical, mass doesn't mean anything. The velocity DOES mean everything. The .22 cal just went through and made water shoot out of the top (water had to get displaced somewhere), and it had time to go out the top without hurting the jug at all. The 7mm, with its rediculous velocity displaced that water so rapidly it literally shredded the jug when all the water pushed its way outward against the walls of the jug. Water went shooting outward in like a 20 foot diameter. A diver jumps off a pools edge and slips into the water nicely because the water is able to be displaced slowly. That same diver jumps off the Empire State Building into a deep pool and his head will break into 1,000 pieces because the water did not have time to move. And since water cannot be compressed its just like hitting cement. Same thing with a plane, as it accelerates more and more it has to push more and more air out of the way (air is a fluid by definition), [b]we call it a shock wave[/b]. As a bullet hits a body it causes one hell of a shock wave as it travels through it, [b]that causes the massive damage[/b]. By the way, do you own a C4 Vette? Is that why your name is C4?
View Quote
Part of what you are saying is correct. Indeed, a [b]temporary cavity[/b] is formed when a high velocity (5.56/.223) bullet strikes human tissue. However, you cannot apply the analogy of a milk jug to the human body. A temporary cavity [b]is[/b] formed inside the milk jug. But as the cavity expands, the plastic ruptures because it is not as [b]elastic[/b] as human tissue. Blood vessels, the lungs, nerves, the intestines, skin and to some extent muscle are all elastic. The 'shock' wave created by a bullet transmits only a [b]tiny[/b] amount of energy to tissue which [b]in no way damages it[/b]. As a medical student, I saw first-hand how you can pull intestines or lungs, say, 8 inches to one side and the other and not damage it. Anyone who has field-dressed a deer has observed the same thing. The 'shock-wave' theory to tissue damage is pure myth when applied to bullets. If we were talking about high-explosives (C-4), then shock-waves [b]do[/b] disrupt tissue, but the energy present in those waves is many orders of magnitude greater than those in bullets. The temporary cavity formed by a high-velocity bullet will, however, damage inelastic tissue such as the liver, spleen, brain and kidney. There is no clinical evidence whatsoever that a high-velocity bullet causes any damage beyond the path of the bullet or its fragments. It simply doesn't happen. The only reason that the 5.56mm FMJ at >2700fps round is so effective is that it fragments and it is these fragments that lacerate/damage tissue within the temporary cavity that is formed by the high-velocity bullet. _______________________________________________ Quote: Thats why bullet wounds to the stomach were so deadly in the Cowboy days, the main artery that runs across the stomach would always get ruptured. _______________________________________________ If the bullet or its fragments happen to hit the abdominal portion of the aorta, then it will be a fatal wound in 'Cowboy days'. The aorta is rather thin (<1.5") and makes a small target when compared to the width of the body. The aorta is extremely elastic, as are all blood vessels, and will stretch from the temporary cavity and not rupture. The reason that abdominal shots were fatal in those days was that the bullet would perforate the intestine, spilling bacteria into the abdominal cavity. Peritonitis, or infection of the abdominal cavity, ensues. Bacteria enters the bloodstream and sepsis eventually kills the person. Without antibiotics, death occurs within a few days or less. I understand everything you're saying, but you happen to be wrong. Please read [url]www.ammo-oracle.com[/url]. It really is all in there. You will learn the truth whether you like it or not.[:D]
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 7:13:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hydro: .... By the way, do you own a C4 Vette? Is that why your name is C4?
View Quote
By the way, do you smoke hydro? Is that why your name is Hydro? [:K]
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 7:42:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By C-4:
Originally Posted By Hydro: Wrong man. The body is made up of 80% water, as you MAY know, water is not compessable. The Aorta will come apart and/or rupture from MUCH less shock trauma than a bullet can dish out. Also, the more arteries, veins and capillaries that are damaged, the deadlier it is. People, like Princess Diana, get ruptured and ripped Aorta's from car accidents. Some people have died after just falling on something and ruptured there Aorta. THEREFORE, a missile traveling through the body at a high rate of speed will displace eveything around the missiles path causing a shockwave to begin. If a main artery is in that close vicinity, its history. Thats why bullet wounds to the stomach were so deadly in the Cowboy days, the main artery that runs across the stomach would always get ruptured. To prove my thoery to be 100% correct, shoot a 1 gallon milk jug full of water with a .22 cal handgun, and than shoot it with a 7mm. My buddy's father did this and it will amaze you how differnet it is. The frontal area of the bullet is basically identical, mass doesn't mean anything. The velocity DOES mean everything. The .22 cal just went through and made water shoot out of the top (water had to get displaced somewhere), and it had time to go out the top without hurting the jug at all. The 7mm, with its rediculous velocity displaced that water so rapidly it literally shredded the jug when all the water pushed its way outward against the walls of the jug. Water went shooting outward in like a 20 foot diameter. A diver jumps off a pools edge and slips into the water nicely because the water is able to be displaced slowly. That same diver jumps off the Empire State Building into a deep pool and his head will break into 1,000 pieces because the water did not have time to move. And since water cannot be compressed its just like hitting cement. Same thing with a plane, as it accelerates more and more it has to push more and more air out of the way (air is a fluid by definition), [b]we call it a shock wave[/b]. As a bullet hits a body it causes one hell of a shock wave as it travels through it, [b]that causes the massive damage[/b]. By the way, do you own a C4 Vette? Is that why your name is C4?
View Quote
Part of what you are saying is correct. Indeed, a [b]temporary cavity[/b] is formed when a high velocity (5.56/.223) bullet strikes human tissue. However, you cannot apply the analogy of a milk jug to the human body. A temporary cavity [b]is[/b] formed inside the milk jug. But as the cavity expands, the plastic ruptures because it is not as [b]elastic[/b] as human tissue. Blood vessels, the lungs, nerves, the intestines, skin and to some extent muscle are all elastic. The 'shock' wave created by a bullet transmits only a [b]tiny[/b] amount of energy to tissue which [b]in no way damages it[/b]. As a medical student, I saw first-hand how you can pull intestines or lungs, say, 8 inches to one side and the other and not damage it. Anyone who has field-dressed a deer has observed the same thing. The 'shock-wave' theory to tissue damage is pure myth when applied to bullets. If we were talking about high-explosives (C-4), then shock-waves [b]do[/b] disrupt tissue, but the energy present in those waves is many orders of magnitude greater than those in bullets. The temporary cavity formed by a high-velocity bullet will, however, damage inelastic tissue such as the liver, spleen, brain and kidney. There is no clinical evidence whatsoever that a high-velocity bullet causes any damage beyond the path of the bullet or its fragments. It simply doesn't happen. The only reason that the 5.56mm FMJ at >2700fps round is so effective is that it fragments and it is these fragments that lacerate/damage tissue within the temporary cavity that is formed by the high-velocity bullet. _______________________________________________ Quote: Thats why bullet wounds to the stomach were so deadly in the Cowboy days, the main artery that runs across the stomach would always get ruptured. _______________________________________________ If the bullet or its fragments happen to hit the abdominal portion of the aorta, then it will be a fatal wound in 'Cowboy days'. The aorta is rather thin (<1.5") and makes a small target when compared to the width of the body. The aorta is extremely elastic, as are all blood vessels, and will stretch from the temporary cavity and not rupture. The reason that abdominal shots were fatal in those days was that the bullet would perforate the intestine, spilling bacteria into the abdominal cavity. Peritonitis, or infection of the abdominal cavity, ensues. Bacteria enters the bloodstream and sepsis eventually kills the person. Without antibiotics, death occurs within a few days or less. I understand everything you're saying, but you happen to be wrong. Please read [url]www.ammo-oracle.com[/url]. It really is all in there. You will learn the truth whether you like it or not.[:D]
View Quote
I read it, nothing in there pertains to human damage. There's also nothing about bullets being tested with gelatin, at least not like I'm trying to figure out. I'll find what I'm looking for and post back. Some of you dudes are pretty funny, some of ya are cocks.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 7:49:25 PM EDT
Some of you dudes are pretty funny, some of ya are cocks.
View Quote
Are there any funny cocks around here?? No, not the one between your legs either. [rofl2]
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 8:17:59 PM EDT
I did some research and here's where I found the reference to hydraulic shock: "Sniper," by Adrian Gilbert. St. Martin's paperback edition/ February 1996, page 139. "The second mechanism of injury - the hydraulic shock wave - only occurs with high-velocity missles travelling above the speed of sound. As the bullet begins to cut its wound track it compresses the tissue in front, sending out a shock wave at a velocity approximately the speed of sound in water (4800fps). Although the shock wave may last no more than a millionth of a second, it can cause damage at distances removed from the wound track, especially when conducted along fluid-filled avenues such as veins and arteries. While denser tissue is better able to withstand the hydraulic shock wave, organs such as the liver, spleen or brain - containing incrompressable tissue with a relatively high fluid consistency - are particularly vulnerable." Ok, in the example I gave overstated the effect of hydraulic shock. However, if you have ever seen a head shot (my experience is when hunting small game) there is alot more than just a laceration and cavitational damage.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 9:20:53 PM EDT
Hydro, You have several things wrong. The human body is not like a milk jug full of water. More like a plastic bag full of water. Shoot your .223 and 7mm and .22LR through a bag of water (NOT packed full, say a 15 gallon kitchen garbage bag with a gallon or two of water), and see what happens. The bullet will create a shockwave (temporary wound cavity) and a permanant wound channel upon entering a body. The temporary wound does create some necrosis in surrounding tissues by disrupting local blood supply. Basically internal severe ecchymosis. I'm currently treating a few patients in the hosptial that might shed some light on your theories. One is a consult to my service. He is admitted for a number of reasons. One if them is ascities. His abdomen looks like he is 9 months pregnant. It is grossly swollen to about 3 times normal diameter. By your theory of pressure, his internal organs should have been crushed by the additional fluid built up in the abdominal cavity. (Try pumping 3 gallons of water under pressure into an already full milk jug)--however things can move somewhat freely in the abdomen. They are also elastic to some extent. Given what some members here posted about their dinners last night, it is a good thing that internal organs can move and survive a fair amount of compression. The second patient is a GSW victim. Without getting into a HIPPA violation, he has gunshot wounds to both lower extremities. 9mm rounds at close range (less than 10 feet). One side had tissue damage, including damage to the toes where the bullet exited after entering on the top of the foot. It actually traveled the length of the big toe. A bullet of diameter .355 of an inch went through a toe of about 1 inches diameter. Smashed the bone. By your theory, the shock wave should have killed every artery and nerve in the toe from the shock wave. Strangely enough, he has full sensation in the digit and excellent capillary refill time after removing the necrotic bone. On the other side, the bullet went through the bottom of the foot and traveled up the leg and currently rests at the knee. The course of the bullet is within 1 cm of the Peronial nerve and also of several major blood vessels in the leg and foot. Only damage is severe ecchymosis and edema to the limb. Nerovascular status is intact to the entire foot and leg. The reason most of the "Sniper" murder victims died was bleeding out before the ambulance could get them to the hospital. It had very little at all to do with shock waves from the bullet and more to do with the .223 round fragmenting in the abdominal cavity and slicing through enough arteries and veins to cause fatal exsanguination. Most of the organs in the abdominal and thoracic cavities are highly vascularized and are likely to bleed out quickly if damaged by bullet fragments. AFARR
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 10:36:44 PM EDT
[blue]We were wondering, simply, how deadly a .223 is to a human, and is that what most SWAT teams use?[/blue] Simple yeah, we used to call it slow. In any case the .223 is approximately as deadly as an ice pick or medium or larger screwdriver. Stick it the right place and the recipient dies. Stick it in the hand and they get pissed off, stick it in the brain or major blood vessel and they die. Other places other results. SWAT teams use a variety of weapons. Depending on the department some use shotguns, some use pistols if they are carrying other devices, some use semi- or full automatic weapons. Those may be in calibers from 9mm and 45 acp (classic pistol cartridges) to .223 (5.56 mm) and some up to .308 (30 caliber or 7.62 mm.) Long range rifle shhoters may use .308s or similar or higher powered rifles .300 Win Magnum is used. Generally these are bolt action rifle. The mix is based on the budget and expected targets of the team. The .223 is not generally considered to be a high powered rifle round. As far as range, a good rifleman such as those turned out by the Marines and Army were able to consistently hit enemy personnel with standard iron sights at ranges up to 900 yds using US 1903 rifles and M1 Garands during WW1, WW2 and Korea. Riflemen of that period generally have (well had) rather condescending views on the utility of the .223 cartridge and the M16 rifle.
Top Top