User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/20/2018 3:30:53 AM EDT
[#1]
All I load anymore for 223 is Hornady 75gr BTHP. So.. That. Have a bunch of TSX and Mk318 on hand but everything is zero'd to the 75gr.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2018 4:16:30 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You dont have to tell me twice. M193 is literally the best for HD/SD. I said if I've been shooting it, and that's what I have in the mag that's in the gun, I just leave it. I also do other types the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2018 4:36:29 AM EDT
[#3]
Mags loaded with a variety of the rounds you’d expect to be mentioned in this sort of thread.
I suppose the “odd man out” would be the mags loaded with BH 50gr TSX. The rest are all of the 62gr variety... -Federal Fusion (mostly the MSR version) -Remington Core Lokt Ultra Bonded -Speer GD -Federal Trophy Bonded All of the above will perform close enough that there’s no real sense in splitting hairs. I stick with 62gr offerings for a few reasons. One, it keeps the ballistics relatively close beyond short range distances. Two, it’s a good middle of the road weight that just about any carbine in a SHTF scenario will be able handle. Three, it’s fairly easy to find at least one of the above on sale at any given point in time. As mentioned earlier, because the ballistics are all relatively close, I don’t have to be picky. Just buy whatever is the best deal. I’ve been thinking about adding another into the rotation; which would be unique compared to the others. The 79gr DRT. I know, it’s gimmicky. But, of the gimmicky rounds, it’s the most intriguing for me. For starters, there are some good examples of it being used in the field against four-legged critters. It also does well with intermediate barriers; while seemingly losing very little in terminal performance. In the testing I’ve seen, it adequately penetrates and fragments very consistently. Another plus is that, because of the design/composition, the 79gr projectile will work in a 1:9 twist. Finally, the alleged fragmentation threshold is incredibly low; when compared to other defensive rounds. DRT lists it at 1400-1500fps. If even remotely close, that’s a big deal for the shorter barreled ARs. That last part is what’s really drawn my interest. The odds are already slim that I’d ever need to deploy an AR in a defensive situation. Even slimmer that it’d be at distances beyond CQB. Still, it’d be nice to know that it should continue to perform at ranges where the others I’ve listed would fizzle out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2018 12:15:24 PM EDT
[#4]
62 gr. Federal Fusion MSR in the carbine. Several more 30s of the same and the rest M193 in the chest rig.
I do not envision using this weapon beyond 50-100 yards, so feel my ammunition choice is perfectly adequate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2018 9:30:22 PM EDT
[#5]
question to those using XM193: If XM193 is so good, then why are no major militaries using it for deployment?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2018 10:02:53 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seriously?  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I couldn't decide between heavy OTM or barrier blind, so I alternate the rounds in my mag with 64gr GD and 75gr OTM's. Kind of the best of both worlds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2018 7:20:11 PM EDT
[#7]
11.5” barrel hornady 75gr interlocks
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2018 7:58:51 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
question to those using XM193: If XM193 is so good, then why are no major militaries using it for deployment? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2018 8:56:28 PM EDT
[#9]
62gr bonded softpoint (FBIT3) & 11.5" Colt upper
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2018 9:57:01 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
question to those using XM193: If XM193 is so good, then why are no major militaries using it for deployment? M855 does meet some lofty specs, like penetrating a steel helmet that no one used at the time and still don't, at 800 yard/meters. Sorry can't remember which off the top of my head. Good luck hitting that helmet or the body under it at that distance, as well. It's better today for accuracy but,,,,,,,,,,,,, |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2018 10:54:16 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC, the US .mil dropped it for the M855, (the original one), and it sucked. M193 was also deemed to be "Too lethal". Not sure who gets to decide that, or why they did, but our doctrine of warfare that wounding one will effectively take 3-5 out of the fight has long been proven less than accurate. For some reason we still rely on the practice-or did. M855 does meet some lofty specs, like penetrating a steel helmet that no one used at the time and still don't, at 800 yard/meters. Sorry can't remember which off the top of my head. Good luck hitting that helmet or the body under it at that distance, as well. It's better today for accuracy but,,,,,,,,,,,,, Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
question to those using XM193: If XM193 is so good, then why are no major militaries using it for deployment? M855 does meet some lofty specs, like penetrating a steel helmet that no one used at the time and still don't, at 800 yard/meters. Sorry can't remember which off the top of my head. Good luck hitting that helmet or the body under it at that distance, as well. It's better today for accuracy but,,,,,,,,,,,,, I want a proven load that has a bullet that creates both a short cavity neck and a huge wound cavity consistently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2018 1:00:30 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC, the US .mil dropped it for the M855, (the original one), and it sucked. M193 was also deemed to be "Too lethal". Not sure who gets to decide that, or why they did, but our doctrine of warfare that wounding one will effectively take 3-5 out of the fight has long been proven less than accurate. For some reason we still rely on the practice-or did. M855 does meet some lofty specs, like penetrating a steel helmet that no one used at the time and still don't, at 800 yard/meters. Sorry can't remember which off the top of my head. Good luck hitting that helmet or the body under it at that distance, as well. It's better today for accuracy but,,,,,,,,,,,,, Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
question to those using XM193: If XM193 is so good, then why are no major militaries using it for deployment? M855 does meet some lofty specs, like penetrating a steel helmet that no one used at the time and still don't, at 800 yard/meters. Sorry can't remember which off the top of my head. Good luck hitting that helmet or the body under it at that distance, as well. It's better today for accuracy but,,,,,,,,,,,,, |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2018 1:26:41 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M193 was also deemed to be "Too lethal". Not sure who gets to decide that, or why they did, but our doctrine of warfare that wounding one will effectively take 3-5 out of the fight has long been proven less than accurate. For some reason we still rely on the practice-or did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2018 1:51:59 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My question was rhetorical. My answer: because there is better out there. Ice pick wounds and 2-4 MOA goups. I've read way too many stories from hospitals and such of ice pick wounds from 55gr fmj. I want a proven load that has a bullet that creates both a short cavity neck and a huge wound cavity consistently. SD for most is inside 25 yards, maybe 50. 1moa at 50 yards is a half an inch, and at 25 it's a quarter of an inch. So at 4moa , 25 yards would be a 1" group, and 50 yards would be 2". The requirements for the gun / ammo combo of a military rifle from WWI until today, is 4moa. 4moa is 20 inches at 500 yards, which is the width of a human torso. With 4moa, you can get hits on a torso with a rack grade rifle. As far as ice pick wounds, that is not typical for M193 at SD distances, but is typical for M855 or steel core / steel cased Russian made stuff. M193 has a short neck, of about 2"-3", at anything over 2700fps, and fragments violently. Under 2700fps you start getting 4" + necks, but from a carbine at 50 yards and in you're 2900fps +. If you're shooting from a 10"-12.5" barrel, choose something else, but we're talking carbines here, not SBRs. Other than velocity M193 and all small caliber rifle bullets can experience problems with angle of attack, but usually at longer ranges than self defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2018 1:52:41 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
None of this is correct. M193 was not dropped because it was “too lethal”. And the US “doctrine” has never been that wounding is better than killing. The fact that a wounded man is helpied by a couple other men is true but the idea that M193 was designed to wound is an old wives tale. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
M193 was also deemed to be "Too lethal". Not sure who gets to decide that, or why they did, but our doctrine of warfare that wounding one will effectively take 3-5 out of the fight has long been proven less than accurate. For some reason we still rely on the practice-or did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2018 5:27:13 PM EDT
[#16]
IMI 77gr Razorcore in my Colt 6920
75gr Gold Dot in my 14.5” BCM 64gr Gold Dot in my 16” BCM XM193 in all my other rifles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2018 7:32:00 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
snip.... Then why isn't XM193 or M193 used by any major militaries? Why doesn't the FBI use M193? Yes it will kill, but no DRT. Yes it is cheap. For plinking and some 3 gun, yes. I mentioned groups because we all use our bulk ammo for other shooting, like 3 gun. I do. That is why I prefer Wolf Gold for bulk. It is 1.2-1.75 MOA all day. I will spend my money on something better for HD that makes bad guys DRT. I don't want an icepick wound letting a bad guy stay in the fight any longer than he should. JMHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2018 7:47:59 PM EDT
[#18]
75gr GD's in a 10.5
Below is some support for this choice of ammo for short range home defense use. https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/75gr_Gold_Dot/16-683974/? https://youtu.be/2lkI36eUoy4 video by Andrew w/TCB I also have some Federal XM556SBCT3 on the way which is 62gr reportedly identical to FBI XM556FBIT3. When the above ammo arrives it will be loaded in the 10.5 and the Gold Dots will be used in a 14.5 https://youtu.be/Z3OjZpjTvLQ video by Andrew w/TCB A break in while you are home could result in the death of you or a loved one. I only do this to stop the aggressors deadly intentions |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2018 8:01:19 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Last time I will argue it. Then why isn't XM193 or M193 used by any major militaries? Why doesn't the FBI use M193? Yes it will kill, but no DRT. Yes it is cheap. For plinking and some 3 gun, yes. I mentioned groups because we all use our bulk ammo for other shooting, like 3 gun. I do. That is why I prefer Wolf Gold for bulk. It is 1.2-1.75 MOA all day. I will spend my money on something better for HD that makes bad guys DRT. I don't want an icepick wound letting a bad guy stay in the fight any longer than he should. JMHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2018 8:05:32 PM EDT
[#20]
M193
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2018 8:15:09 PM EDT
[#21]
75gr Gold Dot. Ive dropped hollow points after this year's deer season experiences with latest gen GMX.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2018 8:24:17 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For the last time, XM193 doesn’t ice pick especially at close ranges. And you know what causes a bad guy to be DRT? Proper shot placement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2018 8:30:19 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IMI 77gr Razorcore in my Colt 6920 75gr Gold Dot in my 14.5” BCM 64gr Gold Dot in my 16” BCM XM193 in all my other rifles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2018 8:31:12 PM EDT
[#24]
Dupe
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2018 8:48:44 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Last time I will argue it. Then why isn't XM193 or M193 used by any major militaries? Why doesn't the FBI use M193? Yes it will kill, but no DRT. Yes it is cheap. For plinking and some 3 gun, yes. I mentioned groups because we all use our bulk ammo for other shooting, like 3 gun. I do. That is why I prefer Wolf Gold for bulk. It is 1.2-1.75 MOA all day. I will spend my money on something better for HD that makes bad guys DRT. I don't want an icepick wound letting a bad guy stay in the fight any longer than he should. JMHO. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
snip.... Then why isn't XM193 or M193 used by any major militaries? Why doesn't the FBI use M193? Yes it will kill, but no DRT. Yes it is cheap. For plinking and some 3 gun, yes. I mentioned groups because we all use our bulk ammo for other shooting, like 3 gun. I do. That is why I prefer Wolf Gold for bulk. It is 1.2-1.75 MOA all day. I will spend my money on something better for HD that makes bad guys DRT. I don't want an icepick wound letting a bad guy stay in the fight any longer than he should. JMHO.  AR-15 AR15 ammo test: M193 XM193F 5.56 NATO in ballistic gelatin Go to 3:20 minutes in.  5.56mm NATO XM193: Drywall & Ballistic Gel Test One more little plus. The vast majority of body armor you may encounter in any SD shootings will be penetrated by M193, and not M855, and not most of the heavier rounds. Why? Velocity. The M193 exceeds the velocity threshold of most armor within self defense distances, whereas the others do not. There are solid coppers that will penetrate at bit slower speed. Some of the Barnes would do it, but a lot of the solids were pulled from the market, and the ATF raided Barnes and other companies and seized their stock.  Patriot Armor The Truth About M193 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2018 8:50:49 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except when it does. Fackler documented a case of if. Punctuate wound like a .22. Soldier was back at it soon after. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2018 11:39:41 AM EDT
[#27]
M193 is a very "Yaw" dependent bullet, as in it is not very predictable / consistent in its fragmentation and is heavily dependent on impact angle.
In layman's terms... if it impacts at a slight angle it is far more lethal, if it happens to impact at a shallower angle it does tend to "icepick". That issue, is enough to produce the inconsistent fragmentation associated with it. You can see , in the image, how bullet impacts may not frag, like desired, in thinner media. 
This is why so many other bullet designs have been developed... and deployed. For instance, the current M855A1 is far less "yaw" dependent.... making its performance far more consistent. A lot of 5.56 ammo is yaw dependent ( Even Mk262 ) ... and some is far less yaw dependent, Sierra TMK bullets were designed to be less yaw dependent. The Poly tip initiates expansion in a far more reliable way.... and the same can be said with other modern bullets... GD, TBBC, even simple SP's... BUT, since bullet development is an ongoing thing... those same designs can be dependent on velocities as well... To me... M193 will work, especially if it hits bone, and is at the correct yaw angle... but a lot of modern designs have taken the yaw angle aspect and minimized it. Took decades, but it does work. I am not sure if any .224 sized bullet will work in every shooting scenario, but the M193 can be a "Jack of All Trades" to a reasonable point. The M855A1 is a much better "JoAT".. respectable AP properties, and less yaw dependent. So consider your "needs" and buy accordingly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2018 12:18:16 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, that was a failure due to the angle of attack, which I've noted, but the AoA is not much of a concern at SD distances due to the retained speed of the bullet, where the violence of impact will cause fragmentation after tumbling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2018 5:23:45 PM EDT
[#29]
No option for heavy soft points.
Speer 75gr Gold Dots. I have one rifle with those, because they shoot great. The other rifle has 62 gr Fusion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2018 11:57:25 PM EDT
[#30]
At "in home" distances I'm grabbing whatever mag is currently close and loaded. Aren't many rounds that aren't going to zip right through a crack head at 15 ft. 2 rounds center mass at close range from an ar is severely lethal no matter the round used. Lord help them if the bullet enters the side of the ribcage moving though the body sideways. Hope I never get put in that situation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2018 12:15:32 AM EDT
[#31]
Since the correct answer for my situation of "00 Buck Shot" is not in the options list...
... I have loaded Federal Tactical 75 JHPBT and feel that would work well at home defense (close) distances. At those very Close distances, I also think plain jane M193 (fragmentation) would work effectively too. And don't forget that the great Oracle of "truth", '60 minutes' did their special report about how about "Why the AR-15 is the choice of mass murders". It was because "Rounds from an AR-15" liquify and devastate people..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2018 11:21:26 AM EDT
[#32]
73gr hornady critical defense, m855a1, and 55gr bthp hornady frontier. I have the most of the frontier stuff. M855a1 is NOT what I would use inside a house because that tungsten tip will keep going through. My buddy went deer hunting with it and took a deer in Ohio with a neck shot, he had TWO exit wounds. One from the copper slug and one from the tungsten penetrator. The hornady 55gr bthp does well in gel tests but only gets 10 inches of penetration. But it destroys the gel and fragments like crazy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2018 11:28:25 AM EDT
[#33]
55 grain bonded Gold Dot
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2018 12:28:02 PM EDT
[#34]
110g v-max in my bedside 8" HD rifle.
Standard 7 mag load out of mk318 in my 14.5" shtf rifle, with > 1,200rnds of 64/75g Gold Dots in ammo cans ready to take with me if I have to leave. Nearly 10k rounds of M193 in the stash. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2018 1:06:45 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since the correct answer for my situation of "00 Buck Shot" is not in the options list...
... I have loaded Federal Tactical 75 JHPBT and feel that would work well at home defense (close) distances. At those very Close distances, I also think plain jane M193 (fragmentation) would work effectively too. And don't forget that the great Oracle of "truth", '60 minutes' did their special report about how about "Why the AR-15 is the choice of mass murders". It was because "Rounds from an AR-15" liquify and devastate people..." 00 Buck shot does just flat out do the job. No offense intended at all... I assume you mean 77gr , and is there a Tactical Version marketed by Federal ? Just asking because I'd love to see a higher velocity loading from Federal... and FWIW, the Fed. GMM 77gr load was pretty slow from my chrono testing. Or if you meant the Hornady 75gr T2 TAP... then that stuff is great, and fast. Again no offense intended. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2018 4:42:23 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M193 is a very "Yaw" dependent bullet, as in it is not very predictable / consistent in its fragmentation and is heavily dependent on impact angle. In layman's terms... if it impacts at a slight angle it is far more lethal, if it happens to impact at a shallower angle it does tend to "icepick". That issue, is enough to produce the inconsistent fragmentation associated with it. You can see , in the image, how bullet impacts may not frag, like desired, in thinner media. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/171545/FleetYaw2-749067.jpg This is why so many other bullet designs have been developed... and deployed. For instance, the current M855A1 is far less "yaw" dependent.... making its performance far more consistent. A lot of 5.56 ammo is yaw dependent ( Even Mk262 ) ... and some is far less yaw dependent, Sierra TMK bullets were designed to be less yaw dependent. The Poly tip initiates expansion in a far more reliable way.... and the same can be said with other modern bullets... GD, TBBC, even simple SP's... BUT, since bullet development is an ongoing thing... those same designs can be dependent on velocities as well... To me... M193 will work, especially if it hits bone, and is at the correct yaw angle... but a lot of modern designs have taken the yaw angle aspect and minimized it. Took decades, but it does work. I am not sure if any .224 sized bullet will work in every shooting scenario, but the M193 can be a "Jack of All Trades" to a reasonable point. The M855A1 is a much better "JoAT".. respectable AP properties, and less yaw dependent. So consider your "needs" and buy accordingly. M193 is not nearly as yaw dependent as M855, which is one of the advantages of it. As for "ice pick wounds" in the rare case that happens, even an "ice pick" wound through your vitals (lung, heart, neck, brain, spine) is going to put you down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2018 6:09:20 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @Bigger_Hammer 00 Buck shot does just flat out do the job. No offense intended at all... I assume you mean 77gr , and is there a Tactical Version marketed by Federal ? Just asking because I'd love to see a higher velocity loading from Federal... and FWIW, the Fed. GMM 77gr load was pretty slow from my chrono testing. Or if you meant the Hornady 75gr T2 TAP... then that stuff is great, and fast. Again no offense intended. Just about all my Defense Ammo is Federal HST for Buckshot & Pistol (9mm & 40). I bought 4 x 20 round boxes. Loaded 60 (2 x 30 mags - one in the gun and one on a stock mounted magazine holder and shot fullone box (20) to confirm zero with irons & optic & check function. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2018 10:28:07 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're thinking of M855, not M193. The pictures you've posted are from M855 gel shots as well. M193 is not nearly as yaw dependent as M855, which is one of the advantages of it. As for "ice pick wounds" in the rare case that happens, even an "ice pick" wound through your vitals (lung, heart, neck, brain, spine) is going to put you down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2018 10:51:01 PM EDT
[#39]
You mean "right". M855 is more yaw dependent than M193, which is what I state. That is a fact. It is also a fact that the gel test images he posted are with M855 bullets.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2018 10:58:40 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You mean "right". M855 is more yaw dependent than M193, which is what I state. That is a fact. It is also a fact that the gel test images he posted are with M855 bullets. A lot of them haven't been around long enough to see everything here. And that photo shows, dramatically, the results of a yaw dependent bullet very well. And I agree M193 works.. especially if it hits vital parts, bones included.. I do say the design was made under different guidelines , from a fair time ago, and there are more suitable, reliable and cost effective designs currently available to all the Non-Mil-Spec folk. Heck Uncle Sugar is trying hard to use HP designs even in Mil. handgun ammo. ( XM 1153 Special Purpose ammo ) I do remember reading from some of the reports in Africa, where a slimmer chest profile was / is prevalent... some of the yaw dependent ammo used was going through folks before any meaningful fragmentation was taking place.. for the most part , fragmentation was happening on the exit end... not consistently on the inside of the chest cavity. NOTE Also M855 was the ammo issued during that time frame. Anyway... my point is.. Yaw dependent bullets are / can be inconsistent in performance.. not bad.. just not as predictable fragmentation as desired. Again... the perfect bullet is gonna be tough to make. It has taken decades to get this far. Most all of us are not limited to FMJ bullets, or have access to M855A1, so I am still going to suggest something more consistent in performance. Even a decent SP is more consistent in expansion / fragmenting... still not perfect, but a decent choice. Typically offering expansion at further ranges then a FMJ. Heck even Hornady 75gr SM / Training is danged near M193 priced for those concerned about that. I wonder how many folks would still choose M193 if price wasn't a factor at all... IE, even the most advanced designs cost the same as FMJ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2018 12:09:45 AM EDT
[#41]
Not much skinnier of a torso exists than on the malnourished Vietcong. M193 had no problems downing them. Again, M855 is not M193.
If you have a 20" barrel, I'd argue that M193 is even superior to most of the newer bullet designs. Carbines and shorter barrels are another story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2018 11:34:20 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You mean "right". M855 is more yaw dependent than M193, which is what I state. That is a fact. It is also a fact that the gel test images he posted are with M855 bullets. Yeah, that's right. They are BOTH 100% yaw dependent. If they don't yaw, they icepick. Period. Therefore, saying one is "more yaw dependent" than the other is factually wrong. The correct difference between the two is that M193 yaws (and subsequently fragments) more reliably than M855. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2018 12:01:58 PM EDT
[#43]
Ive always understood that it is the yaw that causes the fragmentation in 193. Without yaw, it ice picks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2018 12:13:08 PM EDT
[#44]
Alternates ammo in the magazine guy showed up, awesome.
Magtech MK262 clone user here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2018 12:26:35 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ive always understood that it is the yaw that causes the fragmentation in 193. Without yaw, it ice picks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2018 2:45:25 PM EDT
[#46]
......
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2018 2:48:38 PM EDT
[#47]
.......
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2018 6:02:02 PM EDT
[#48]
Ok, let me rephrase. M193 is less dependant on the angle of yaw than m855, which is what the above referenced m855 gel test was showing (much longer / shorter neck due to angle of yaw).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2018 5:23:45 AM EDT
[#49]
This isn’t GD - Eric802
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2018 9:06:18 AM EDT
[#50]
2008 Study by Gary K. Roberts, LCDR, USNR
also “In 1980, I treated a soldier shot accidentally with an M16 M193 bullet from a distance of about ten feet. The bullet entered his left thigh and traveled obliquely upward. It exited after passing through about 11 inches of muscle. The man walked in to my clinic with no limp whatsoever: the entrance and exit holes were about 4 mm across, and punctate. X-ray films showed intact bones, no bullet fragments, and no evidence of significant tissue disruption caused by the bullet’s temporary cavity. The bullet path passed well lateral to the femoral vessels. He was back on duty in a few days. Devastating? Hardly. The wound profile of the M193 bullet (page 29 of the Emergency War Surgery—NATO Handbook, GPO, Washington, D.C., 1988) shows that most often the bullet travels about five inches through flesh before beginning significant yaw. But about 15% of the time, it travels much farther than that before yawing—in which case it causes even milder wounds, if it missed bones, guts, lung, and major blood vessels. In my experience and research, at least as many M16 users in Vietnam concluded that it produced unacceptably minimal, rather than “massive”, wounds. After viewing the wound profile, recall that the Vietnamese were small people, and generally very slim. Many M16 bullets passed through their torsos traveling mostly point forward, and caused minimal damage. Most shots piercing an extremity, even in the heavier-built Americans, unless they hit bone, caused no more damage than a 22 caliber rimfire bullet.”
Fackler, ML: “Literature Review”. Wound Ballistics Review; 5(2):40, Fall 2001 |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
