Tumbling terror.
Any high velocity hunting round would be worse than the bullets from a “military grade” bullets as many military bullets are meant to incapacitate and create logistics logjam vs. outright killing someone.
Where as hunting rounds are meant to kill as quickly as possible to prevent animal suffering.
Stupidity. War is war, and all is fair when trying to win.
I really do not know about the physics, but I have seen several wounds from AK-47’s. They tear out large chunks with them because most of the energy goes into and stays with the body being hit.
I have not seen M-4 wounds, but M-16 wounds that did not hit something solid usually went out the other side pretty quickly.
Maybe hitting a bone or piece of metal changes all that, but the AK-47 wounds were “religious expletive” awful.
Interesting. Thanks.
L
It ain’t like in the movies.
does not explain how, if at all, the M4 round discussed is different from round available for commercial purchase.
Though it certainly doesn’t conclusively win the debate, this guy did some great research. It has applied science, empirical observation, and qualitative theory. It’s a tough debate though. Both weapons have good reasons to choose one over the other and many of the reasons are a matter of life or death. I guess one should choose both.
This is all nonsense. I’ve seen the old movies from the 1930’s and 1940’s, and a battle death is not very painful or bloody. All that happens is a person will clutch their chest and fall over. There is never any blood.
The vast majority of the complaints about the 5.56 round came from shooting them out of a weapon with a short 10” barrel this will significantly reduce the V1-V2 portion of the equation. The 5.56 fired out of a 16” barrel or longer is a nasty weapon.
I’m not squeamish, but I could “feel” those wounds......wow!
I was aware before I enlisted during Nam, that the .223 tumbled and did more damage, by design. But that shattered femur was telling.
Regardless of one caliber’s (slight?) superiority over another, the key is a rifle that is sufficiently accurate to hit the enemy, and that is utterly reliable under harsh conditions.
If it won’t fire, caliber is worthless. That’s why the AK is so ubiquitous. Extreme reliability that takes no skill to maintain.
How about the AK-74? Nasty little round.
(Not directed at you)
This article ignores reality.
The 5.56mm is a medium distance varmint round. It over-penetrates and is illegal to use to hunt deer in many states because it is insufficient to bring down the animal in single shot. The 7.62x39mm and similar.30-30 are far more effective one-shot killers and used for deer and pigs.
This yawing/tumbling/magical BB effect is more associated with the 5.45x39mm from the AK74, which earned it the name “poison bullet.” Like the 5.56mm, the 5.45x39mm is designed to be lightweight and capable of hitting targets up to 500m-600m with a DMR.
The 5.56mm is facing increased scrutiny by our military because jihadists are taking several hits before staying down. The magical yawing is not doing much to stop them.
Go back in history to the invention of the Stone M16. It was designed to be an end run around the Geneva Convention prohibition of hollow point AMMO. The round was designed to tumble and it had a light copper jacketing that was sure to disintegrate upon impact. Thus way more bang for the buck. Because the round was light, a soldier could carry much more ammo. All in all a brilliant weapon before the army screwed it up, when they chose the wrong powder for the rounds. And the gun always required scrupulous cleaning.
Seriouly ouch-making article, with rather macabre photos, the jist of which seems to be that the M4 bullet tumbles and breaks apart.
You can’t even get experts to agree totally on something as seemingly straight-forward as terminal ballistics. Everybody weighs the variables differently.
“The properties of the 5.56 MM come close to violating the prohibition of using expanding bullets in warfare. “
There is effectively no prohibition to using expanding rounds as the rules are currently interpreted. “Hollow point” rounds aren’t allowed. However, both the Sierra Match King bullets favored by military snipers and the new SOST 5.56 rounds in service with the Marines are expanding rounds. The SMK has a hollow portion under the front of the jacket which instantly collapses on impact. The SOST round is derived from the Trophy Bonded Bear Claw hunting bullet and will mushroom with the best of them. (It is now available to civilians, I just found out courtesy of the linked article BTW.)
http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/mk-318-mod-0-bullet-matter-call/
http://www.thegunzone.com/opentip-ammo.html
Even some fully jacketed 5.56 ammo is quite devastating. If the bullet’s center of gravity is sufficiently far to the rear, it will tumble on impact even if it is perfectly stable (high twist rate) in flight. This is the trick to producing armor-piercing (non-expanding) bullets that will produce large wound channels and not just pencil through the target.
Civilians also have access to soft point and ballistic tip 5.56 ammo that performs extremely well on soft targets. Don’t hesitate to take your 5.56 deer hunting if you’re so inclined - just make sure you pick the right bullet.
That prohibition was obsolete within 15 years of its enactment. It was written in 1899, not long after the invention of smokeless gunpowder but before the terminal effects of spitzer-style bullets (which were developed in response to the higher velocities smokeless powder was capable of driving bullets to) at near-3000 fps velocities were well-known. The truth is, this is hardly unique to the 5.56 NATO cartridge. Any ‘streamlined’ bullet driven fast enough will tend to tumble and produce explosive terminal effects, regardless whether full metal jacket or full-on hollowpoint.