national geographic channel ballistics expert says: - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - national geographic channel ballistics expert says: (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 9/13/2005 8:26:11 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
But, the 50 Vmax IS the shit.

Yes. you are correct.

50 Vmax IS shitty.

God, why do people think exploding coke bottles equal a good manstopper?

Posted: 9/13/2005 8:27:29 AM EDT

[#2]

.

Posted: 9/13/2005 10:04:09 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
I can't tell if you're joking or not

Oh let me take off the smiley then. I really want to know if anyone has tried them out for their own use.

Posted: 9/13/2005 10:16:45 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I can't tell if you're joking or not
Oh let me take off the smiley then. I really want to know if anyone has tried them out for their own use.

I'm sure someone has, but you'd be laughed off of arfcom if you ever admitted to paying for that trash.

I love these threads.....

Posted: 9/13/2005 10:45:33 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
The thing that you guys have not discussed is the hydrostatic shock wave and the size of the temporary wound cavity. Having seen wounds caused by 7.62 x 39 and 5.56, I can tell you that under the right circumstances they will both kill and other times just make you bleed. M855s have a tendency to just go right though as do the commie FMJs. But bone contact with both rounds will cause serious injury. But we had one guy come through the ER with multiple hits from an SKS and all the holes in soft tissue and were nice and clean. Through and through. He only needed minor surgery to debride the wounds and he was fine.

The curious thing about the 5.56 especially the m193s is that the entry hole maybe small but the tissue damage in the wound cavity is tremendous. We are talking hamburger. It will may not kill you but it will take you out of a fight. Also the 5.45 commie rounds 7N6s are nasty as they also tumble and fragment and cause large wound cavities.

ETA: Yup, my Rolex looks cool but its the suck when it comes to keeping time. My Tag will out perform it. But just the heft of the Rolex tells people you spent a load on it. My Seadweller hasnt seen the light of day for a while. And tell me why the damn thing needs to be overhauled every few years and it costs as much as some watches.

What opinion (if any) do you have on this, having some experience with gunshot wounds?

You've seen this first hand, correct?

Posted: 9/13/2005 10:46:08 AM EDT

[#6]

Well, it goes like this. FMJ Can wound OR kill, the theory behind keeping military bullets FMJ is that it is a big strain on military logistics when men are wounded as compared to just killed. SP or pure lead bullets are meant for a kill as they deform and produce a much worse wound then if the same bullet was FMJ. That's why hunting bullets are SP and using FMJ for hunting is ill advised and in some states Illegal. As to 5.56mm well originally is was meant to be a wounding FMJ like the other military FMJ's but by accident (in Vietnam) it was discovered to be much deadlier than any FMJ due to fragmentation but the Army kept it in service anyway.

Posted: 9/13/2005 10:52:20 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
I'm sure someone has, but you'd be laughed off of arfcom if you ever admitted to paying for that trash. I love these threads.....

I take it those bullets are expensive then? I still want to know about first-hand use though. Has anyone other than the demo shooters actually used the those "blended metal" rounds?

Posted: 9/13/2005 10:53:14 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
As to 5.56mm well originally is was meant to be a wounding FMJ like the other military FMJ's

You can, of course, provide documentation for this, correct?

Posted: 9/13/2005 11:01:32 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm sure someone has, but you'd be laughed off of arfcom if you ever admitted to paying for that trash. I love these threads.....
I take it those bullets are expensive then? I still want to know about first-hand use though. Has anyone other than the demo shooters actually used the those "blended metal" rounds?

I have no clue what they cost. A google search would help you establish a price. But even if they were the same price as, say, M193, or even Mk262, I still wouldn't buy them, because - get this - they SUCK.

If you want to see dramatic results on test mediums, there are plenty of varmint-type bullets (nosler BT, sierra blitzking, hornady v-max, speer TNT) that will produce big, shallow wounds of the type that impresses the average mouth-breather when they witness a water jug being blown apart.

Meanwhile, testing (believe it or not, there are actually some professional ammo-testers posting in this very thread...) has shown that bullets that reliably penetrate while also fragmenting are where it's at.

if you were so fortunate as to be able to choose the conditions under which you were going to shoot an attacker, there would be MANY circumstances under which some of the flashy expensive ammo would be PERFECT.

Having siad that, from what I gather, rarely does anyone get to choose their shots during a fight - so when you have to take 'em as they come, stick with what is proven to perform consitently.

Posted: 9/13/2005 11:07:57 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Paging Troy & brouhaha..... I repeat Paging Troy & brouhaha.

Austrian covered it.

I'm glad he did, because I began pulling my hair out when I read the first few responses.

+1

Posted: 9/13/2005 11:25:32 AM EDT

[#11]

People actually shoot goats? Are they game animals? Dangerous quarry? Edible? Or just slow moving targets? Nobody would shoot a nanny goat would they??

Posted: 9/13/2005 12:58:39 PM EDT

[#12]

Everyone knows if you're shooting 5.56 or 9mm, you might as well be throwing stuffed olives at your opponent.

Posted: 9/13/2005 1:40:37 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
I have no clue what they cost. A google search would help you establish a price. But even if they were the same price as, say, M193, or even Mk262, I still wouldn't buy them, because - get this - they SUCK.

I can't even find a place to actually order those blended-metal rounds. I wonder if you have to go to Mexico to get them. Hehe! I wonder if someone in a Turd World country somewhere can grab a chimp, strap a vest on it, and start "testing".

Posted: 9/13/2005 1:44:57 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The thing that you guys have not discussed is the hydrostatic shock wave and the size of the temporary wound cavity. Having seen wounds caused by 7.62 x 39 and 5.56, I can tell you that under the right circumstances they will both kill and other times just make you bleed. M855s have a tendency to just go right though as do the commie FMJs. But bone contact with both rounds will cause serious injury. But we had one guy come through the ER with multiple hits from an SKS and all the holes in soft tissue and were nice and clean. Through and through. He only needed minor surgery to debride the wounds and he was fine.

The curious thing about the 5.56 especially the m193s is that the entry hole maybe small but the tissue damage in the wound cavity is tremendous. We are talking hamburger. It will may not kill you but it will take you out of a fight. Also the 5.45 commie rounds 7N6s are nasty as they also tumble and fragment and cause large wound cavities.

ETA: Yup, my Rolex looks cool but its the suck when it comes to keeping time. My Tag will out perform it. But just the heft of the Rolex tells people you spent a load on it. My Seadweller hasnt seen the light of day for a while. And tell me why the damn thing needs to be overhauled every few years and it costs as much as some watches.

What opinion (if any) do you have on this, having some experience with gunshot wounds?

You've seen this first hand, correct?

Several times in fact. Long shifts at Detroit Recieving and you see a lot of stuff. Not as much 5.56 as AK rounds. Two of the surgeons itrained under are military and have mucho experience with assault caliber wounds. Some of the wounds were just devastating. I would rather die then have parts missing like that. You wonder how they dont die.

Posted: 9/13/2005 2:37:33 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
The thing that you guys have not discussed is the hydrostatic shock wave...

You know, of course, that this is pure bullshit, right?

Posted: 9/13/2005 3:00:20 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
And the effect of a small diameter, high velocity projectile like an M193/M855 at its original design velocity on living tissue is well proven.

This depends upon the bullet as well. When M193 or M855 fails to fragment, it makes small wounds even at high velocity. This happens more often with M855, because there is more variation in bullet manufacture.

Posted: 9/13/2005 3:03:25 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
People actually shoot goats? Are they game animals? Dangerous quarry? Edible? Or just slow moving targets? Nobody would shoot a nanny goat would they??

maybe they are the most economical to shoot......

who knows?

Posted: 9/13/2005 3:11:23 PM EDT

[#18]

FMJ is mandated by the Hauge, which came into place in order to spank England for using HP and "Dum-Dum" bullets after FMJ .303s proved ineffective in several engagements.

The purpose was supposidly humanitarian but in reality it was a German/French effort to beat up on England. But the rational was that FMJs do less damage, but that is another way of saying they are more likely to wound than to kill. So saying FMJs are designed to wound isn't necessarly inaccurate. Fackler has certainly said that in some of his work.

Given that the bad guys don't seem all that concearned with their wounded, the logic of tying up resources by wounded is dubious.

Posted: 9/13/2005 4:44:59 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The thing that you guys have not discussed is the hydrostatic shock wave...

You know, of course, that this is pure bullshit, right?

Thats not true. What causes the temporary wound cavity to form? It is also extremely damaging to tissue as well. Even thought entry wound is small, the damage in the tissure behind is pretty impressive. Lots of muscle and nerve damage.

Posted: 9/13/2005 4:51:28 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The thing that you guys have not discussed is the hydrostatic shock wave...

You know, of course, that this is pure bullshit, right?

Thats not true. What causes the temporary wound cavity to form? It is also extremely damaging to tissue as well. Even thought entry wound is small, the damage in the tissure behind is pretty impressive. Lots of muscle and nerve damage.

Hydrostatic shock is a real phenomena (if it's not, someone needs to re-write the textbooks) but its role at handgun velocities is minimal......

Posted: 9/13/2005 5:00:41 PM EDT

[#21]

Hydrostatic shock does happen in the lungs where there is sufficient compressible air to cause trauma to the vascular system. But only at impacts significantly over Mach 1.

And while a FMJ in old calibers like .303 Brit., .30-40 Krag, .30-'03 US tends to penetrate instead of tumble, shorter bullets like the 7.62 x 39, .30-'06, 7.62 NATO and most importantly, 5.56 NATO are more prone to tumbling due to bullet shape and length.

And for the frag fans, fragmentation typically reduces penetration and is less than optimum in terminal effects compared to bullets that expand properly and stay together.

Posted: 9/14/2005 1:24:15 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Hydrostatic shock does happen in the lungs where there is sufficient compressible air to cause trauma to the vascular system. But only at impacts significantly over Mach 1.
[/uote]

I suggest all of you that think 'Hyrdostatic Shock' is real read up research done by one of the worlds foremost experts on the subject The Shockwave Myth. Written by someone who was an Army Surgeon in Vietnam, ran the Army's Ballistics Lab, and is considered the father of modern ballistic science.

And for the frag fans, fragmentation typically reduces penetration and is less than optimum in terminal effects compared to bullets that expand properly and stay together.

Yes fragmentation reduces penetration - but as long as the round meets the FBI minium of 12" then fragmentation is a VERY GOOD THING. You don't need a bullet that penetrates 24" but only produces a 0.50" hole (anything over 18" is wasted on humans).

Fragmentation allows a smaller bullet to make a much larger permanent cavity (which is a good thing for a combat round). Compare the permanent cavities of a decent fragmenting round vs and expanding round of the same caliber and you'll see what I mean. It allows a smaller caliber to perform as good or better than rounds from a larger caliber weapon using non fragmenting rounds. Fragmentation also generally solves the problem of 'over penetration'.

There are 2 instances that I can think of where Fragmentation is NOT a good thing:
1) If it prevents the round from reaching the minimum (12") penetration depth (i.e. the light varmint HPs).
2) You want to eat the meat after you shoot the target.

Posted: 9/14/2005 1:30:34 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
And while a FMJ in old calibers like .303 Brit., .30-40 Krag, .30-'03 US tends to penetrate instead of tumble, shorter bullets like the 7.62 x 39, .30-'06, 7.62 NATO and most importantly, 5.56 NATO are more prone to tumbling due to bullet shape and length.

Keith:

The yawing effect of a bullet is sinificantly overstated and misunderstood. EVERY conical bullet will yaw and make ONE 180 degree turn to move with it's base forward once it encounters a dense medium. One half turn isn't a whole lot to get excited about, especially since all conical bullets will do that. The distance between entry and yawing is usually a factor of the length/width ratio of the bullet and unrelated to caliber.

Posted: 9/14/2005 1:34:47 PM EDT

[#24]

Oh - and one other thing - hydrostatic "shock", AKA "temporary cavity" happens with ANY bullet. The effect of said temporary cavity is the issue. I don't doubt - as ARDOC has mentioned - that there is damage and bruising from the temporary cavity. On the other hand, this damage does not reliably contribute to stopping the assailant unless it is close to the liver, spleen and/or kdineys, which are somewhat less compressible than other tissue.

Posted: 9/14/2005 1:38:24 PM EDT

[#25]

Mattel demanded that the round be a wound only cartridge when they invented the AR15.

Posted: 9/14/2005 1:39:58 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Mattel demanded that the round be a wound only cartridge when they invented the AR15.

You know, 1777 is a good number of posts to stop with. 1776 would have been even better.

Posted: 9/14/2005 1:41:28 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Mattel demanded that the round be a wound only cartridge when they invented the AR15.

You know, 1777 is a good number of posts to stop with. 1776 would have been even better.

Uh..........It was a joke. Sorry you wasted 493

Posted: 9/14/2005 1:50:58 PM EDT

[#28]

aren't they all designed for wounding?

Posted: 9/14/2005 2:02:27 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
aren't they all designed for wounding?

Yeah, military cartridges are designed to wound to death.

To quote from DSA:
"7.62mm - The One Shot Solution"

Posted: 9/14/2005 3:32:17 PM EDT

[#30]

My understanding of this (and I don't have the exact language in front of me) is that bullets could not be used that caused extraordinary or excessive tissue damage if they didn't kill you. Not sure where the .50 BMG with APIT fits in this scheme... So you ended up with clean kills or clean holes that could be repaired with less amputated limbs, permanent disability, etc. The idea is to take the soldier out of the fight without causing too much damage if he/she lives, which is all things considered, more humane. By and large, either FMJ or HP will kill quickly with a CNS/ heart/lung shot and not kill with leg/arm/lower torso shot. But the wounds will be a lot easier to clean up. 55gr 5.56 fragmentation was a happy accident that no one has bothered to remedy, which would be easy with a copper-washed mild steel jacktet, thicker jacket, modifications to the cannelure and so on. It's not designed to fragment, like pre-cut ammo (is it glaser or something?) but it does when the conditions are right. Well, maybe now it is designed to but try and get someone to admit that...

OK, fire away...

Posted: 9/14/2005 3:33:41 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
My understanding of this (and I don't have the exact language in front of me) is that bullets could not be used that caused extraordinary or excessive tissue damage if they didn't kill you. Not sure where the .50 BMG with APIT fits in this scheme... So you ended up with clean kills or clean holes that could be repaired with less amputated limbs, permanent disability, etc. The idea is to take the soldier out of the fight without causing too much damage if he/she lives, which is all things considered, more humane. By and large, either FMJ or HP will kill quickly with a CNS/ heart/lung shot and not kill with leg/arm/lower torso shot. But the wounds will be a lot easier to clean up. 55gr 5.56 fragmentation was a happy accident that no one has bothered to remedy, which would be easy with a copper-washed mild steel jacktet, thicker jacket, modifications to the cannelure and so on. It's not designed to fragment, like pre-cut ammo (is it glaser or something?) but it does when the conditions are right. Well, maybe now it is designed to but try and get someone to admit that...

OK, fire away...

No fire from me. I read the passage once (whether it's Hague or Geneva, I can't recall) and I believe the prohibition is on the use of projectiles that cause either "excessive" or "unnecessary" suffering.

Posted: 9/14/2005 3:43:09 PM EDT

[#32]

Yes, I think that's the language.

Posted: 9/14/2005 3:45:51 PM EDT

[#33]

There is a basic misunderstanding of "wound" from the very beginning of this thread.

A wound, in this case, is trauma to the body caused by a bullet (5.56). The assumption, wrongly made, is that the wound is intended to be survivable.

The curious thing about the 5.56 especially the m193s is that the entry hole maybe small but the tissue damage in the wound cavity is tremendous

The intention is to kill the enemy before he kills you. The idea is to cause a large / highly damaged wound channel to cause the enemy to bleed out.

Is the 5.56 "designed to wound"? You bet! But it is intended that it kill with that wound.

Stoner and Sullivan found that the 5.56 in many cases made a larger wound channel than did .30 cal ball.

Posted: 9/14/2005 3:48:52 PM EDT

[#34]

The actual hole that a 5.56 makes in skin is not that impressive. What is impressive is what happens right under it. Any soft tissue is severely damaged and looks pulverized. It will shatter bone but the bullet will stop right there and itself is usually destroyed. The bullet looks like little flecks of gold that the miners would get in their pans. The xrays will show hundreds of tiny little fragments even if it only hits soft tissue.

When we get of these, a high velocity bullet tends to pull in anything that is around and that causes significant morbidity and mortality due to infections. Bits of clothing and dirt are all sucked into the wound and with the pulverized tissue underneath, the bacteria just go wild.

We have to debride these areas and it involves cutting away at any tissue that looks dead until we encounter fresh bleeding.

Posted: 9/14/2005 4:07:28 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The thing that you guys have not discussed is the hydrostatic shock wave and the size of the temporary wound cavity. Having seen wounds caused by 7.62 x 39 and 5.56, I can tell you that under the right circumstances they will both kill and other times just make you bleed. M855s have a tendency to just go right though as do the commie FMJs. But bone contact with both rounds will cause serious injury. But we had one guy come through the ER with multiple hits from an SKS and all the holes in soft tissue and were nice and clean. Through and through. He only needed minor surgery to debride the wounds and he was fine.

The curious thing about the 5.56 especially the m193s is that the entry hole maybe small but the tissue damage in the wound cavity is tremendous. We are talking hamburger. It will may not kill you but it will take you out of a fight. Also the 5.45 commie rounds 7N6s are nasty as they also tumble and fragment and cause large wound cavities.

ETA: Yup, my Rolex looks cool but its the suck when it comes to keeping time. My Tag will out perform it. But just the heft of the Rolex tells people you spent a load on it. My Seadweller hasnt seen the light of day for a while. And tell me why the damn thing needs to be overhauled every few years and it costs as much as some watches.

What opinion (if any) do you have on this, having some experience with gunshot wounds?

You've seen this first hand, correct?

Several times in fact. Long shifts at Detroit Recieving and you see a lot of stuff. Not as much 5.56 as AK rounds. Two of the surgeons itrained under are military and have mucho experience with ~~assault~~ Mediumcaliber wounds. Some of the wounds were just devastating. I would rather die then have parts missing like that. You wonder how they dont die.

With almost 10,000 posts and 4 years on here, you should know better than to use that word. If you hit someone upside the head with a garden hose, that is then an assault weapon in that the hose was the weapon used to commit an assault on an individual. So, please quit cussing on this board by referring to AR, AK or anything of the like in any way assault.

Posted: 9/14/2005 4:49:48 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mattel demanded that the round be a wound only cartridge when they invented the AR15.

You know, 1777 is a good number of posts to stop with. 1776 would have been even better.

Uh..........It was a joke. Sorry you wasted 493

Heh. Never can tell these days.

Sorry.

Posted: 9/14/2005 5:23:42 PM EDT

[#37]

In other words, you're most likely to bleed to death (internally) when hit by a 5.56 NATO round. It's not a fast kill round at all unless you hit the brain, heart, or spinal cord.

Posted: 9/14/2005 5:30:19 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The thing that you guys have not discussed is the hydrostatic shock wave and the size of the temporary wound cavity. Having seen wounds caused by 7.62 x 39 and 5.56, I can tell you that under the right circumstances they will both kill and other times just make you bleed. M855s have a tendency to just go right though as do the commie FMJs. But bone contact with both rounds will cause serious injury. But we had one guy come through the ER with multiple hits from an SKS and all the holes in soft tissue and were nice and clean. Through and through. He only needed minor surgery to debride the wounds and he was fine.

The curious thing about the 5.56 especially the m193s is that the entry hole maybe small but the tissue damage in the wound cavity is tremendous. We are talking hamburger. It will may not kill you but it will take you out of a fight. Also the 5.45 commie rounds 7N6s are nasty as they also tumble and fragment and cause large wound cavities.

ETA: Yup, my Rolex looks cool but its the suck when it comes to keeping time. My Tag will out perform it. But just the heft of the Rolex tells people you spent a load on it. My Seadweller hasnt seen the light of day for a while. And tell me why the damn thing needs to be overhauled every few years and it costs as much as some watches.

What opinion (if any) do you have on this, having some experience with gunshot wounds?

You've seen this first hand, correct?

Several times in fact. Long shifts at Detroit Recieving and you see a lot of stuff. Not as much 5.56 as AK rounds. Two of the surgeons itrained under are military and have mucho experience with ~~assault~~ Mediumcaliber wounds. Some of the wounds were just devastating. I would rather die then have parts missing like that. You wonder how they dont die.

With almost 10,000 posts and 4 years on here, you should know better than to use that word. If you hit someone upside the head with a garden hose, that is then an assault weapon in that the hose was the weapon used to commit an assault on an individual. So, please quit cussing on this board by referring to AR, AK or anything of the like in any way assault.

5.56 and 7.62x39 are rounds that are utilized by assault rifles. Just like the original German kurtz rounds. So they maybe medium power rounds but they are also commonly used in assault rifles.

Posted: 9/14/2005 6:40:55 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
In other words, you're most likely to bleed to death (internally) when hit by a 5.56 NATO round. It's not a fast kill round at all unless you hit the brain, heart, or spinal cord.

That is true of ALL bullets - weather they be 5.56, 7.62, or even .338.

My understanding of this (and I don't have the exact language in front of me) is that bullets could not be used that caused extraordinary or excessive tissue damage if they didn't kill you

Not quite. The wording in the Hauge says bullets cannot be 'Designed' to cause exccessive suffering. The fact 5.56 fragments was not due to design, it was a freak happenstance that worked in our favor. That is why the OTM rounds (hollow point match) rounds are allowed to be used in combat because they were not DESIGNED to fragment, the hole is merely a byproduct of the manufacturing process. The fact the 5.56 match rounds WILL fragment (and cause even larger wounds than M193 & M855) is again purely coincedental.

Posted: 9/15/2005 4:59:54 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
aren't they all designed for wounding?

Yeah, military cartridges are designed to wound to death.

To quote from DSA:
"~~7.62mm~~ - The One Shot Solution"

.50BMG

besides the fact that the USof A did not sign the hauge accords, how do they determine if a bullet is DESIGNED to cause excessive suffering and not incorperate it into the manufacturing process?

besides, being wounded causes excessive suffering if it were due to a lack of effectiveness of a FMJ bullet

also, IF they made a bullet resistant vest (like level X or something) and it could stop a .50bmg, the wearer of the vest would still die of the impact--would do yall think?

Posted: 9/15/2005 5:03:55 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
its a ok show

some Dr said that bullets in the military (5.56, i bet) were designed for "wounding"

wtf?

what a load of BS

right?

They were designed for wounding just like a high center of mass shot is designed to stop an immediate threat.

High-center mass AKA head shot. Stop immediate threat AKA kill.

The military has a funny way of talking, especially when weak kneed civilians are listening.

Posted: 9/15/2005 5:08:31 PM EDT

[#42]

You hardly ever see in requirement documents anything about termanal effects, however the few I state "lethality."

Posted: 9/18/2005 5:03:34 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Oh - and one other thing - hydrostatic "shock", AKA "temporary cavity" happens with ANY bullet. The effect of said temporary cavity is the issue. I don't doubt - as ARDOC has mentioned - that there is damage and bruising from the temporary cavity. On the other hand, this damage does not reliably contribute to stopping the assailant unless it is close to the liver, spleen and/or kdineys, which are somewhat less compressible than other tissue.

I had heard that hydrostatic shock does not have a significant effect on wounding in handguns. However, with high velocity rounds (over 2000 fps) that it does because the temporary cavity is expanding at a rapid rate and it overcomes the elasticity of the flesh causing it to tear. In the case of the 5.56 Nato round, this effect is made worse by the fragmentation of the bullet at the same time.

Also, as far as the "designed to wound" stuff, it doesn't even make sense. If that's the case, then why not just pass another treaty that would only allow soldiers to use pepper spray and tasers, that way no-one would be killed. They instead of "shock and awe", it would be "shock and snot"!!

Or, we could arm all militaries with .22 short revolvers and ban the use of aircraft, that way everyone would have a sporting chance. Or, we could have our champions thumb wrestle to settle conflicts.

Weapons of war are designed to kill, that's what war is all about, killing people and breaking things.

Posted: 9/18/2005 5:08:31 PM EDT

[#44]

I remember hearing the whole "wounding" theory in high school from one of my teachers.
He was a vietnam vet that got shot in the knee while hopping off a chopper in his first taste of combat and that was it for him. He never shot his gun in anger.

Posted: 9/18/2005 5:56:52 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh - and one other thing - hydrostatic "shock", AKA "temporary cavity" happens with ANY bullet. The effect of said temporary cavity is the issue. I don't doubt - as ARDOC has mentioned - that there is damage and bruising from the temporary cavity. On the other hand, this damage does not reliably contribute to stopping the assailant unless it is close to the liver, spleen and/or kdineys, which are somewhat less compressible than other tissue.

I had heard that hydrostatic shock does not have a significant effect on wounding in handguns. However, with high velocity rounds (over 2000 fps) that it does because the temporary cavity is expanding at a rapid rate and it overcomes the elasticity of the flesh causing it to tear. In the case of the 5.56 Nato round, this effect is made worse by the fragmentation of the bullet at the same time.

Also, as far as the "designed to wound" stuff, it doesn't even make sense. If that's the case, then why not just pass another treaty that would only allow soldiers to use pepper spray and tasers, that way no-one would be killed. They instead of "shock and awe", it would be "shock and snot"!!
Or, we could arm all militaries with .22 short revolvers and ban the use of aircraft, that way everyone would have a sporting chance. Or, we could have our champions thumb wrestle to settle conflicts.

Weapons of war are designed to kill, that's what war is all about, killing people and breaking things.

Yeah - I should have clarified. I was talking about handguns in this particular case.

Posted: 9/18/2005 6:03:14 PM EDT

[#46]

As mentioned, velocity plays a huge part in the wounding characteristics of the 5.56. The tissue damage is severe but also as I have mentioned before, the vacuum created also sucks in debris like you would not believe. Most of the limbs that I have seen lost to high velocity weapons occur due to infection. If you get a bone hit or something catastrophic you loose the part right there and its done. But other times infection takes hold once the patient is stabilized and no amount of antibiotics or debridement will save the leg or arm.

Posted: 9/18/2005 6:27:00 PM EDT

[#47]

Fackler argues that you should be careful about debridement:

]www.rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html]

The adjunct half-truth, Cavitation requires extensive debridement of tissues..." (7), lacks valid scientific support. Cavitation is nothing more than a transient displacement of tissue, a stretch, a localized "blunt trauma." It is not surprising that elastic tissues such as bowel wall, lung, and muscle are relatively resistant to being damaged by this stretch, while solid organs such as liver are not (9). Most of the muscle subjected to temporary cavity stretch survives; tissue survival has been verified in every case in which muscle was allowed to remain in situ and healing was followed to completion (43-48).

Posted: 9/18/2005 6:29:39 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Man, it's just like at the range last Saturday. Over heard some guy saying "...You see, FMJ ammo is a special kind that is armor piercing...."

Next we will hear how the 5.56 round "Bounces" arround inside the person, how it "tumbles" through the air, and how you can't leave magazines loaded cause it will wear out the spring.

How is that not true?

It's the repeated cycling of compressing/decompressing the springs . . . oh, nevermind. Just read this again-->www.ammo-oracle.com

Or this one, specifically: www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm#storemags

Posted: 9/18/2005 6:35:55 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
The actual hole that a 5.56 makes in skin is not that impressive. What is impressive is what happens right under it. Any soft tissue is severely damaged and looks pulverized. It will shatter bone but the bullet will stop right there and itself is usually destroyed. The bullet looks like little flecks of gold that the miners would get in their pans. The xrays will show hundreds of tiny little fragments even if it only hits soft tissue.

When we get of these, a high velocity bullet tends to pull in anything that is around and that causes significant morbidity and mortality due to infections. Bits of clothing and dirt are all sucked into the wound and with the pulverized tissue underneath, the bacteria just go wild.

We have to debride these areas and it involves cutting away at any tissue that looks dead until we encounter fresh bleeding.

I know this sounds awful, but I wonder, if you'll ever have to treat a 6.8 SPC wound, could you stop by and let us know how it turned out?

Justin

Posted: 9/18/2005 6:38:47 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
But, the 50 Vmax IS the shit.

Yes. you are correct.

50 Vmax IS shitty.

God, why do people think exploding coke bottles equal a good manstopper?

What if the man you are trying to stop is carrying coke bottles (in a threatening manner, of course)? Blow up his coke bottles, and I bet he stops to think twice before continuing...................

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - national geographic channel ballistics expert says: (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us