imashooter
New member
There's no debate among those with knowledge. Sometimes they can, other times not. Just depends. Anything else on your mind?
Do 5.56 fmj often break up when they hit flesh or water?
- Thread starter Catfishman
- Start date
The military and I have different needs. I'm very unlikely to encounter situations involving bad guys with plate armor and helmets.
So I use Spire Point bullets which give reliable, explosive wounds. And they will penetrate standard IIIa vests at sub-100yd distances when launched from a 16" barrel. They are reasonably cheap, (compared to 77gr TMK), plenty accurate, work on deer, and available (if you reload).
So I use Spire Point bullets which give reliable, explosive wounds. And they will penetrate standard IIIa vests at sub-100yd distances when launched from a 16" barrel. They are reasonably cheap, (compared to 77gr TMK), plenty accurate, work on deer, and available (if you reload).
Last edited:
This is not to disparage anyone else's experience. Because this is such a narrow set of parameters, it is very easy to get different conclusions that are outside of the conditions. It is just to point out that measured testing did not show any significant performance increase based upon any commercially available ammunition at CQB distances with a short barrelled rifle.
This data was gathered using US Army issued M16A2 and M4 rifles. The longer barreled M16A2 had significantly less issues with CQB Lethality.
The significant trend was not bullet design but simply bullet weight. Heavier bullets where more likely to yaw and by the simple physics bigger bullets make bigger holes, impart more damage. That is why 77 grain was chosen.
The largest variation in yaw performance occurred at CQB ranges. It goes from Zero Yaw to 4 degrees of Yaw and quickly dampens out.
Keep in mind that this is very short ranges. We are talking about 5-8 feet and less. It is the ranges you might find in your bedroom if an attacker was present.
Anything outside of those parameters is a different animal and a different conversation. I have no doubt everyone's experience is being truthfully related. I would also point out the devil is in the details and the conditions are very specific in this case. Those conditions are not applicable to much in the civilian world outside of Home Defense.
The good news is DoD is able to study the phenomenon and has tools to do so that outside the reach of commercial companies. Equipment exist's which can accurately and in real time measure the Angle of Repose and the flight of the bullet.
The Army has seen this before in Tank Ammunition too.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA519801.pdf
It is just a question of how much funding and priority do they want to put into solving 5.56mm CQB lethality issues. With this administration's priorities being elsewhere and the fact the Army is seriously considering 6.8 fury, I don't hold out much hope this will get any more attention at 77 grain has become the norm in SOCOM for CQB. It worked well for the majority of my tours.
This data was gathered using US Army issued M16A2 and M4 rifles. The longer barreled M16A2 had significantly less issues with CQB Lethality.
The significant trend was not bullet design but simply bullet weight. Heavier bullets where more likely to yaw and by the simple physics bigger bullets make bigger holes, impart more damage. That is why 77 grain was chosen.
The largest variation in yaw performance occurred at CQB ranges. It goes from Zero Yaw to 4 degrees of Yaw and quickly dampens out.
Keep in mind that this is very short ranges. We are talking about 5-8 feet and less. It is the ranges you might find in your bedroom if an attacker was present.
Anything outside of those parameters is a different animal and a different conversation. I have no doubt everyone's experience is being truthfully related. I would also point out the devil is in the details and the conditions are very specific in this case. Those conditions are not applicable to much in the civilian world outside of Home Defense.
The good news is DoD is able to study the phenomenon and has tools to do so that outside the reach of commercial companies. Equipment exist's which can accurately and in real time measure the Angle of Repose and the flight of the bullet.
The Army has seen this before in Tank Ammunition too.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA519801.pdf
It is just a question of how much funding and priority do they want to put into solving 5.56mm CQB lethality issues. With this administration's priorities being elsewhere and the fact the Army is seriously considering 6.8 fury, I don't hold out much hope this will get any more attention at 77 grain has become the norm in SOCOM for CQB. It worked well for the majority of my tours.
Attachments
Last edited:
2damnold4this
New member
The article Small Caliber Lethality places a large importance on the variability of yaw. It surprises me that the article pretends that there aren't 5.56 rounds that are not yaw dependent.
I think it is important to mention... not all FMJ 55gr bullets are the same.
Lots of 55gr bullets have thicker jackets, and tend to not fragment at all.
SO bullet design does play a role in fragmentation as well.
Also... the 55gr M193 and 62gr M855 can be very yaw dependent.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA519801.pdf
Lots of 55gr bullets have thicker jackets, and tend to not fragment at all.
SO bullet design does play a role in fragmentation as well.
Also... the 55gr M193 and 62gr M855 can be very yaw dependent.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA519801.pdf
You can let them know their logic and methods are flawed. There is even a monetary award program if you're right.
Contact:
Inquiries about WSTIAC capabilities, products, and services may be addressed to
Mark Rider Director, WSTIAC
703.933.3317
Or contact:
https://discover.dtic.mil/contact-us/
2damnold4this
New member
What's the reward? Do you have a link to how much money I can get if I poke a hole in the findings?
Do you have a link to the testing and data or is that all a super secret squirrel thing?
It's obvious that the paper places a great importance on yaw in wounding but doesn't place any weight on bullets that don't rely upon yaw for wounding.
It doesn't show the tests and it doesn't even list the commercial loads tested. It can't find a difference between any military 5.56 load, M80 ball, commercial 5.56 loads, or the mystery 100 grain load but it does burn a lot of words talking about the variability of yaw.
I'd like to see the data behind the paper.
COTS = Commercial Off The Shelf, IAW, Civilian Ammo purchased off the shelf of a retail business selling ammo.
When the study was first conducted it used the standard testing methods of the day, Gel Block testing. What they found out was that testing is unreliable and inconsistent.
DoD has equipment that can measure the exact path and movement of a bullet in flight throughout its trajectory. This equipment was combined with Gel Testing and was able to explain the differences in testing results.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA519801.pdf
Are you sure your Civilian company shot didn't just shoot some GEL Blocks and raved about the results?
Attachments
i've killed wild hogs using 5.56 mm M193 rounds. Most were taken at ranges of < 60 yards. Most were shot by bolt action rifles having a rifling twist of one turn in 12 inches. A few were shot by an AR-15 which has a rifling twist rate of one turn in 9 inches.
The bullet penetrates about five inches into the heart-lung area of a 150-200 pound hog standing broadside ; then yaws and fragments.
The bullet penetrates about five inches into the heart-lung area of a 150-200 pound hog standing broadside ; then yaws and fragments.
Last edited:
2damnold4this
New member
I think we all know what COTS means but it doesn't tell what loads were tested.
If there can be no reliable testing such as that conducted under the FBI's standards, we'll just have to rely upon guess work.
I guess it must be magic or random, inexplicable spiritual events if the military can't replicate gel tests like the FBI.
I'm not questioning that M193 ball, M855 ball, or M80 ball is yaw dependent and yaw can be random. What I do contest is that bullets designed to work well in gel won't consistently work well in gel. There are plenty of bullets that aren't dependent on yaw and work consistently in gel and work consistently in folks.
If the military can't figure out that there are bullets that aren't yaw dependent, and can't measure any difference between M193, M855, M80, 77 grain M262, and any commercial load such as Federal Fusion, we should make sure the military is restricted to using the cheapest ball ammo available. Why waste taxpayer dollars if the military can't tell the difference?
I get that people aren't gel but gel provides a consistent test medium. I don't hunt deer with M80 ball because its performance on game is crap compared to even a cheap cup and core .308 Win bullet.
The bottom line is if the military can't tell a difference between all of those loads, some being dependent on yaw and others not, it's either doing crap testing or fudging the results for some purpose.
Yep.
I think the military can tell the difference. There just isn't much difference to measure.
Pretty sure the testing data is taken from multiple range measurements.
For Example:
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA530895.pdf
Each ammo was its own study and subsequent report. They did not go dump a bucket of ammo on the table and see which one feels like it does the most damage.
You can contact those same folks and probably get the information you are looking for in the rest of the reports.
It is a very specific set of circumstances.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6976958&postcount=37
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6976958&postcount=37
2damnold4this
New member
I'm sure that is a great report on M855 ball ammo but I don't see any similar report on the commercial offerings tested. I can't even find what commercial offerings were tested. Was it 62 grain American Eagle FMJ on sale at Wally World, was it 62 grain Federal Fusion, or some other 62 grain load? It certainly isn't in the paper you keep citing as evidence that there are no better 5.56 loads than military ball ammo.
That directly contradicts your claim that all 5.56 ammo falls in the same performance band for CQB.
No, my experience is my own. This is MY Experience and is no different than talking about Hogs only it wasn't Hogs.
The Army DATA says its insignificant. I noted that the heavier cartridges' were at the end of the scale that has less penciling issues. I just thought that was interesting and Probably why we got issued 77 grain ammo and emptied the entire Army supply of it that first tour. We also doubled tapped way before the Army recommended its use.
The Army says the width of the scale is not large enough to matter and there is not significant difference in lethality based on a bullet design.
Now, that is out of a SOCOM Short Barrelled Rifle. That means you not using an SBR should be good to go.
The Army says anything not an SBR did not have significant penciling issues.
So, if you are using a 16 inch barrel AR15 (NOT an SBR) and 77 grain ammo....
You should be outside of the parameters THE ARMY says caused penciling issue with SBR rifles at CQB distances.
Got it now.. Army SAYS
SBR + Any weight ammo = significant Penciling possible Controlled pairs recommended
Anything NOT SBR = insignificant penciling issue Controlled Pairs recommended
Last edited:
I gave you the contact info. Go track it down and stop whining about it. The Army Engineers data, testing, and conclusions' are their own. If you don't like it, go do your own thing. It's America and you have that right. I support you in your effort.
There really is a rewards program if you actually make a suggestion or have an idea that improves things. They will be happy to listen to good information.
Last edited:
2damnold4this
New member
It's not on me to improve the article as I am not the one citing it as evidence that there are no commercial loads that do better than military loads for home defense or CQB. You are the one making the claims and me pointing out that the article doesn't say what commercial loads were tested and me pointing out the article isn't consistent with your personal experience isn't something that needs fixing by me.
The article you keep citing says the testing was done (figure 2) using the M16a1, M4, M16a2/14, Mk18, and M14. The article doesn't say that MK262 performed better certain barrel lengths, including the short barreled Mk18, than the other rounds despite that being your experience. The article does spend a lot of time talking about the importance of yaw but doesn't mention any bullets that are not yaw dependent. The article does mention some of its limitations which is nice. Some of those limitations might be part of why your experience differs from what the article tells us.
I suspect that your experience, while not a scientific test, is probably more accurate than what the article is telling us when it comes to Mk262 vs M855 ball at cqb distances. I don't think any of the commercial ammunition the Army tested was yaw independent as ammunition designed to expand or fragment reliably might not meet legal or other requirements for the Army.
I think this is a better source of information than your WSTIAC article if one is not limited to Army approved ammunition:
http://www.mlefiaa.org/files/ERPR/Terminal_Ballistic_Performance.pdf
Wow. It is evidence.
No, it is Aberdeen Proving Ground's Engineers backed up by some pretty sophisticated testing techniques and much more data than anyone's experience on these boards.
No, That is not correct. My experience does not negate measured data under scientifically controlled enviorments.
You aren't a flat earther are you?
Because all bullets are yaw dependent....
Yep. Your opinion and you are entitled to it.
I don't see simple things like the range information or conditions listed. Is it converted to standard atmosphere? I notice he talks about the importance of bullet stabilization and yaw even going so far as to cite the same US Army report on M855. All of his bullet velocity are muzzle velocity which appears to show wounds at that velocity...
Which means every one of the those bullets is subject to the yaw variation....
But whatever. You be you.
2damnold4this
New member
Yes, it's flawed evidence that you are citing and it's on you, not me, to correct or explain it when I point out the problems with it.
That is simply wrong. A soft tipped hunting bullet, a jacketed hollow point handgun bullet, a soft lead musket ball, and a 5.56 round designed for police are examples of bullets that aren't yaw dependent for wounding. A hard cast pistol bullet isn't yaw dependent.
FMJ military rifle rounds are dependent on yaw and that's why states ban them for many hunting applications.
You're right that your experience doesn't negate good science. It should make you skeptical of bad science unless you are willing to say your experience means nothing.
That's a bit insulting, don't you think?
If the Army wrote a paper that said it couldn't measure the curvature of the Earth, would you say the Earth was flat or would you point out the problems with the Army's paper?
That is your opinion, you are entitled to it, and I told you where to let the Army Engineers know how they can correct themselves. It was a legitimate question on whether you a flat earther. Believe it or not, they do exist.
I disagree. I happen to think the engineers and scientist working at Aberdeen Proving Ground are pretty good at what they do. Once more, they have access to equipment and the ability to measure actual bullet motion that does not exist anywhere in the civilian world. It is technology that simply is not available and is way outside the budget of any civilian organization. That is a fact.
Not according to the folks with the money, equipment, and expertise to actually determine that.
In fact, the author of the paper you cited disagrees with you as well.
You never answered my questions on the paper you submitted:
I don't see simple things like the range information or conditions listed. Is it converted to standard atmosphere? I notice he talks about the importance of bullet stabilization and yaw even going so far as to cite the same US Army report on M855. All of his bullet velocity are muzzle velocity which appears to show wounds at that velocity...
Which means every one of the those bullets is subject to the yaw variation....