Terminal Ballistics

[Nicole]

The end result of getting hit with a .223. Before clicking, be aware that the images are graphic (duh, or there wouldn't be point to them). If you like watching the surgery shows on TV, click away. If you pass out when the nurse takes your blood sample, move along, nothing for you to see here.

 

[Boghog1]

I saw that a while back, it sealed the deal for me building my AR15 vs an AR10 variant. Of course price of ammo also helped me in making that decision.

 

[saltydude]

Ya, that will leave a mark.

 

[Grimlock]

Few inches left to the proximal and he would of hit the Femoral artery. Poor bastard, shattered femur can't feel good. I would of loved to responded to that call.

 

[BradM]

ouch

 

[schnips]

Shot from across the street, bullet did not even hit the bone, it was shattered by the shock wave.

and people say that 5.56 isn't powerful enough

 

[rlee]

I was impressed by the surgical reference to high velocity as the velocity at which the temporary stretch cavity damages surrounding tissue.
The images certainly illustrated that.

 

[drgrant]

It would be cool to see the same type of injury involving M855 at close range vs this wound. (which supposedly was with M193). Reason being is on soft targets M193 is (supposedly) a much better stopper because of its tendency to yaw/tumble and cause more damage.

-Mike

 

[ISOTOX]

Yup the little basterds can really tumble and tear you up....

 

[mclina]

Wow, that is impressive.

 

[NHKevin]

That was a close range - across a street. I'd like to see a side by side photo with a 5.56 at something over 400 yards.

 

[terraformer]

Um, wow to this...

According to victim, drunk cop shot him after altercation. According to cop, accident daw.

This is in the Philippines BTW.

This is good.

We were able to save the leg. Was touch and go for a while, though. Infection or the threat of it is now the patient's biggest enemy. And even if he recovers, he will be limping for the rest of his life, as over half of his thigh muscles died and we had to excise 'em.

 

[fencer]

Dontcha just hate it when a drunk shoots you in the leg with an M-16? He is gonna have to cancel his appearance on Dances ith the Stars.

Can't dance with Hamburger thigh

Remember Boys and Girls, alcohol and firearms don't mix.

 

[Boghog1]

sure they do, stupidity and firearms don't mix. However alcohol is a stupidity force multiplier. ( I think the last part is someones sig line here)

Dontcha just hate it when a drunk shoots you in the leg with an M-16? He is gonna have to cancel his appearance on Dances ith the Stars.

Can't dance with Hamburger thigh

Remember Boys and Girls, alcohol and firearms don't mix.

 

[Cabinetman]

Ok, I've read about the affects of the .223 as it tumbles through the target and this photo would appear to confirm that. Why, then, do we also read about our troops having to shoot motivated targets multiple times as they are charging? If that type of wound was representative of all .223 hits, one would think that it would be better than sliced bread.

When I've shot objects with any of my .223 rifles, they tend to penetrate like a fine drill through the mass. AS an example I was shooting a duck decoy at 100 yards. After 10 shots, the decoy (life-size mallard) didn't move on the stool it was sitting on so our impression was that it never got hit. But, upon inspection of the target, there were 10 smooth holes neatly drilled through the wood decoy as if they were meant to be. There wasn't any super damage caused by the round. Now, that may be because it was going to a solid object as opposed to a side of beef but one still wonders about the troops complaining about 'knock-down power" of that round. You've all read them. So, why the differences??

Rome

 

[Boghog1]

the big thing with 5.56 is the velocity, IIRC it needs be up there around 26-2700fpc to fragment which is what causes the damage you see in those photos, from a short barrel e.g. 16" or less you are under that threshold by the 100 yard mark. compound that the 193 fragments easier as it doesn't have that little steel spike in it. so shot placement becomes much more critical at the longer ranges to stop someone.

 

[Cabinetman]

Oh! So, then we can assume that the drunk cop was shooting some type of short-barreled version of the M16 so by the time the round hit the guy in the leg, it has lost sufficent velocity and fragemented rather then blowing straight through, right? That does make sence to me and would explain why the 22" barrel of the original M16 shooting at close range (CQC) would tend to drill through an attacker rather than tumble. A shorter barrel reduces the overall speed so the shortened barreled M4 models would make the .223 a man dropper. Do I have that right? I've wondered about this for quite a while and having no military experience I rely on what experience you all have out there.

Rome

 

[Boghog1]

no, we can assume he was shooting a long barrel M16 and it had sufficient velocity to fragment, reverse of what you are saying. there were other issues back in the early days that caused lack of stops in Vietnam.

 

[Cabinetman]

Can you elaborate on what some of those other issues were? I've studied the history of the M16 from it's inception and never really read about the "stopping power" issue. There was lots to read about the performance of the rifle.

Rome

 

[Boghog1]

I'll see if I can dig into it and find what I had read previously. I'll post links as I find them.

Start here (I know it is Wiki but)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO#Criticism

and here is some more

http://forums.second-amendment.org/index.php?topic=636.0

 

[DrNVP]

Oh! So, then we can assume that the drunk cop was shooting some type of short-barreled version of the M16 so by the time the round hit the guy in the leg, it has lost sufficent velocity and fragemented rather then blowing straight through, right? That does make sence to me and would explain why the 22" barrel of the original M16 shooting at close range (CQC) would tend to drill through an attacker rather than tumble. A shorter barrel reduces the overall speed so the shortened barreled M4 models would make the .223 a man dropper. Do I have that right? I've wondered about this for quite a while and having no military experience I rely on what experience you all have out there.

Rome

http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34714

http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19881

Read these two threads to learn some basic things about wound ballistics.

The bottom line is with proper duty/defense ammo (OTM or barrier blind loads) the 5.56mm is extremely effective. Ball ammo (M855 and M193) is inconsistent and highly reliant on velocity and tissue thickness in order to yaw and fragment. There is a reason why certain units in the US military have moved away from M855 ball and are using Mk262 OTM and Mk318 SOST projectiles.

 

[Boghog1]

I wonder if those are the threads I had looked at, work blocks most anything related to guns

 

[Cabinetman]

Thanks for those links. There's a lot of good reading that I'll print off and keep in my library. It's almost counterintuitive to think that longer barreled rifles resulted in better fragmenting but the proof is there. I'll study that. Don't feel compelled to add links. I'll do some searching after reading these.

I know that there were lots of issues with the ball powder that was used initially in the ammo which caused fouling issues, something that Stoner said would happen but those in power ignored. That and all the other sundry issues that lead to the installation of forward assists and better cleaning regimines. I wasn't aware of the fragmenting issue in such detail, however.

Rome

 

[Boghog1]

Here is some more
http://forums.second-amendment.org/index.php?topic=1079.0;wap2

Another thing to consider is rifle twist have change and the higher twist rates have made the rounds more stable reducing the yaw that results.

 

[cekim]

Here is some more
http://forums.second-amendment.org/index.php?topic=1079.0;wap2

Another thing to consider is rifle twist have change and the higher twist rates have made the rounds more stable reducing the yaw that results.

Everything I have read, including some of what you have posted here says that "stopping power" was never an issue, but rather the initial instruction that the M16 "never needs cleaning" was totally broken as a result of a change in powder between testing and deployment.

I can tell you from my own experience going through 1000 rounds in a day that this rifle wants to run wet and requires lots of cleaning. The vietnam era experience was no different, but "stopping power" wasn't an issue I've heard raised about the "meat axe."

8-10 years ago there were internet squirrels going around complaining about 5.56 in the sandbox because of engagements beyond 500 yards, but that seems to have been tamped down by the reality that the people complaining had no data to back their complains up - they were just echoing BS they heard to burn off some news print/bytes.

 

[cekim]

1000+ rounds in a day through an M16:




Though I should say that other than the betamag, it ran flawlessly through that - even as dirty as it was. The Betamag was early on and possibly related to ammo.

The hard part would come if you put a rifle that dirty away and let it sit for a few days it would gum up BADLY (been there done that). It only required 5 minutes to clean it, but it needed it...

 

[drgrant]

Now, that may be because it was going to a solid object as opposed to a side of beef but one still wonders about the troops complaining about 'knock-down power" of that round. You've all read them. So, why the differences??

Run balgel tests with M855 and M193 at under 100 yards and you'll find out why people whine. Not sure what they are using now, but M855 I believe is/was standard issue for M4 carbines and the like.

The problem is at CQB distances, M855 tends to just drill right through things. Great for prenetrating body armor or intermediate barriers, shitty in terms of wound ballistics. If you want to make better wound cavities you really need something like XM262 Mod 0 (eg, 77 gr Sierra Match King OTMs stoked up to 5.56 NATO levels) or after that, M193.

The difference is the inherent stability of the bullets while in flight. With something like M193 or the 75-77gr SMKs (or their cousins) as soon as they hit something soft they become unstable and start tumbling, causing more damage. On the other hand the 62gr bullet in (typical) M855 stays inherently
stable at short ranges and tends to just go through stuff.

For whatever it is or isn't worth, I believe the military had developed an "improved" M855 round that likely addresses these issues in some way or another while still retaining its ability to penetrate.

-Mike

 

[mousegunfan]

It's not the tumble or fragmentation of the round. It's the shockwave causing that damage. I was taught when I carried the M-16 (using nato 5.56) that it creates a small entry hole and the shock wave will create a fist size hole out the exit wound.

 

[DrNVP]

It's not the tumble or fragmentation of the round. It's the shockwave causing that damage. I was taught when I carried the M-16 (using nato 5.56) that it creates a small entry hole and the shock wave will create a fist size hole out the exit wound.

the "shockwave" is due to the round moving fast enough to create a temporary wound cavity that is able to stretch and tear tissue. But the amount of tissue destruction depends on where you are hit, as some organs are much more elastic than others. The other 2 wounding mechanisms of 5.56mm ball rounds are yaw and fragmentation, both of which help increase the wound cavity. So ideally, all three factors are working together to make the 5.56mm ball round effective. But we know from experience that yaw and fragmentation from ball ammo is inconsistent at best and that's why the US military is starting to use better ammo now.

The tissue surrounding the permanent cavity is briefly pushed laterally aside as it is centrifugally driven radially outward by the projectile's passage. The empty space normally occupied by the momentarily displaced tissue surrounding the wound track, is called the temporary cavity. The temporary cavity quickly subsides as the elastic recoil of the stretched tissue returns it towards the wound track. The tissue that was stretched by the temporary cavity may be injured and is analogous to an area of blunt trauma surrounding the permanent crush cavity. The degree of injury produced by temporary cavitation is quite variable, erratic, and highly dependent on anatomic and physiologic considerations. Many flexible, elastic soft tissues such as muscle, bowel wall, skin, blood vessels, and empty hollow organs are good energy absorbers and are highly resistant to the blunt trauma and contusion caused by the stretch of temporary cavitation. Inelastic tissues such as the liver, kidney, spleen, pancreas, brain, and completely full fluid or gas filled hollow organs, such as the bladder, are highly susceptible to severe permanent splitting, tearing, and rupture due to temporary cavitation insults. Projectiles are traveling at their maximum velocity when they initially strike and then slow as they travel through tissue. In spite of this, the maximum temporary cavity is not always found at the surface where the projectile is at its highest velocity, but often deeper in the tissue after it has slowed considerably. The maximum temporary cavitation is usually coincidental with that of maximum bullet yaw, deformation, or fragmentation, but not necessarily maximum projectile velocity.

All projectiles that penetrate the body can only disrupt tissue by these two wounding mechanisms: the localized crushing of tissue in the bullet's path and the transient stretching of tissue adjacent to the wound track. Projectile wounds differ in the amount and location of crushed and stretched tissue. The relative contribution by each of these mechanisms to any wound depends on the physical characteristics of the projectile, its size, weight, shape, construction, and velocity, penetration depth and the type of tissue with which the projectile interacts. Unlike rifle bullets, handgun bullets, regardless of whether they are fired from pistols or SMG’s, generally only disrupt tissue by the crush mechanism. In addition, temporary cavitation from most handgun bullets does not reliably damage tissue and is not usually a significant mechanism of wounding.

 

[aklaft]

Ok, I've read about the affects of the .223 as it tumbles through the target and this photo would appear to confirm that. Why, then, do we also read about our troops having to shoot motivated targets multiple times as they are charging? If that type of wound was representative of all .223 hits, one would think that it would be better than sliced bread.

When I've shot objects with any of my .223 rifles, they tend to penetrate like a fine drill through the mass. AS an example I was shooting a duck decoy at 100 yards. After 10 shots, the decoy (life-size mallard) didn't move on the stool it was sitting on so our impression was that it never got hit. But, upon inspection of the target, there were 10 smooth holes neatly drilled through the wood decoy as if they were meant to be. There wasn't any super damage caused by the round. Now, that may be because it was going to a solid object as opposed to a side of beef but one still wonders about the troops complaining about 'knock-down power" of that round. You've all read them. So, why the differences??

Rome

Because they miss and can't admit it to themselves. Same reason that the frozen uniforms in Korea supposedly could bounce rifle bullets.