How about before that one post? I'll admit I'm not an expert on all the various bullet types used, but you were wrong in making it appear that the small cavity makes it a hollow point as if that allows it to expand like a hunting bullet. Also, the penetrator bullets only fragments in flesh with the proper yaw and velocity. I did find out that some units are using bullets that fragment more often. These rounds appear to be banned under the Hague agreement but the US will use them anyway. https://www.ecnmag.com/news/2015/07/despite-international-ban-us-army-wants-hollow-point-bullets
Open tipped bullets will shed their jackets and fragment unless they're bonded especially at higher velocities. I didn't say anything about expansion/mushrooming. Monometal HP's will always expand.
HE was a miserable man, that I had to fire, after he SHOWED me the note he would send, signed, the plant manager, sexually harassing women. I begged him NOT to send the note, HE SENT THE NOTE.
Yes, being hit with a bullet can be quite nasty. All bullets are lethal. These sick people achieve a "high score" because they go where no bullets will be heading their direction. The AR may be their choice in murder weapons, but gun free zones will be their number one choice long after ARs are no longer available.
It is also achieved by deliberately selecting locations where targets are tightly congregated, and given no room to move or otherwise escape.
You know absolutely nothing about firearms or ammunition, or how injuries occur, I have observed such in various field Medical posts, and all the laws of physics still apply, mass @ velocity, greater mass, greater temporal crush cavity or area disrupted and vascular damages and tissue crush area and disruption and damage to or displacement or rupture of internal organs. Since Military rounds are non expanding, Example: M-1 carbine .30 cal Carbine, Miltary ball ammo is a relatively poor round on deer. Switch to a soft point hunting round, with superior results. After a long time, the lethality of the 5.56 NATO round, achieves the goal of turning the Enemy Soldier, into a wounded combatant needing aid and medical evac from the battlefield thereby consuming more resources logistically than moribund enemy combatants. The original goal or switch from 7.62 or .308 NATO to 5.56 was weight savings of rifle and ammo, as well as the ancillary philosophy of servicing the enemy in a fashion that causes the greatest logistical cost as far as resources. We see the revised idea is a revision to a 6.5 mm round for better ballistic results coming full circle, I enjoyed the 6.5-06, at around 3,200 fps 120 grain hp bullet and likely a .308 version is possible. Flat shooting and very accurate, I tested it out to 300 meters, casually, and that is not the maximum effective range. Personal opinion, 6.5 / .30 caliber is the better for Military purposes.
The 5.56 originated from studying film footage of American soldiers in combat. The found that nearly half never fired a round even if under attack being in full panic mode - though many would swear they were - and among those firing most were just frantically spraying out bullets as fast as they could - very few actually aiming at all. This necessitated rifles with minimal recoil but still allowing high penetration - while reducing ammo weight so they troops could each carry a whole lot more bullets each. IF troops actually were aiming and firing at targets, they would have gone with the far more effective .380 M1A or similar. The 5.56 was developed to deal with realities of how troops actually conducted themselves in combat - and for a largely non-volunteer drafted military with little training and only interested in surviving - not winning. Upon returning to an all volunteer military they stuck with the 5.56 because that's what they had - but eliminated full auto allowing only 3 round bursts as professional trained soldiers will be more disciplined in firing. As they become more disciplined - meaning not wasting ammo just slinging it out, the military is seriously considering going to a more lethal, hard hitting round.
Uh... no. You demonstrate ignorance of guns, cartridge/bullet design, and ballistics, something many posting here have considerable knowledge. I forty years ago I used a rifle chambered for .222 cartridge (near equivalent to the most popular round used in the AR 15) for very small varmits in a nuisance critter eradication business that got me through college along with one chambered in 22-4000 (with load that shot nearly 20% faster than the .223/5.56). Neighter cartridge is consider humane for hunting deer and is illegal for that use in many states in the US. During the 80’s I hunted deer with a .50 cal black powder rifle (considered humane for deer) and took thirteen deer with 13 shots in those years. The loads I used in that rifle had around 1/2 the velocity of .223/5.56 round. Velocity is but one factor in the effectiveness of a round on a human. What makes round suitable for purpose has been the topic of debate for well over the last couple centuries and what I just wrote would likely spawn debate in a thread dedicated to that topic. BTW, there are many loads for the .223/5.56 and there is ongoing debate on the effectiveness of various rounds for purpose even within military circles.
.303 necked down to .22. Very accurate and flat shooting out of the Savage I once owned. I don’t remember the load I used to do, but was fairly wind tolerant. I seem to remember my barrel having a 1:12 twist.
That's not really true at all Jake. The Army very well knew the M16 in it's combat debut, using a slow twist 1:12 barrel and a 55 grain bullet was not a very good barrier penetrator. SF's who used the weapon before general issue were even using 1:14 barrels. Ordnance, the Army as well as the USMC was tied to the rifleman/marksmen concept for some time, even after the M16 became common in Vietnam. The USAF only wanted a single weapon to replace the M1 carbine, the grease gun and the Garand.
Velocity is one component of lethality. A .204 36 grain bullet traveling at 3600 fps is much less lethal than a 415 grain .458 SOCOM traveling at 1800 fps.
Except for the fact that it does not. The most common caliber utilized for the AR-15 moves at a much greater velocity than ammunition utilized for hunting large, dangerous game animals around the world, yet the higher velocity ammunition is considered inadequate for taking said game animals, which require a larger, heavier, sometimes denser bullet to take adequately. There is also the fact that lethality is simply not determined by velocity. A crossbow bolt, for example, travels at speeds far slower than most firearm rounds, yet it is quite capable of piecing a kevlar vest that does not have hard trauma plate inserts. This is due more to the structure of the crossbow bolt than anything related to velocity. To further illustrate the point is the act of stabbing. For such an injury to be lethal, one only need apply sufficient force to piece flesh, which is hardly resilient to penetrative injury from an implement with a small cross sectional density, like the profile of a common knife, or even a piece of rebar.
7.62x51 must make this guy pee his pants. 300 Wby magnum? He'd die just looking at it. Another pile of unadulterated horsepoo from the master of same.
5.56x45 SS109 ball 62gr@3025fps: 1260ft-lb 7.62x51 M80 ball 147gr@2750fps: 2469ft-lb Is the faster bullet - with half the energy - more lethal? How/why?
