OK,
I must admit that I am not an expert in the terminal ballistics of small arms. However, the statements by plusp in the thread [Link to invalid post] go beyond controversial into misleading or at best incomplete and applicable only in limited circumstances IMO.
In a search for the Suter article, I found this quote from Fackler: (http://www.dipr.org/content/papers/assault_weapons_revisited.html)
"Though some have claimed a particular lethality for assault weapons, a literature review finds instead that assault rifle and weapon wounds more closely approximate handgun injuries than rifle injuries:
[note the distinction made between rifles and assault weapons and AW wounds resemble pistol wounds but still does a rifle give a larger wound or not?]
[M]any AK-47 shots will pass through the body causing no greater damage than that produced by non-expanding handgun bullets. The limited tissue disruption produced by this weapon in the Stockton schoolyard is consistent with well documented data from Vietnam... as well as with controlled research studies from wound ballistic laboratories."
[Note that he says wound ballistics simulations can provide good results]
Fackler goes on:
"In general, it is the size and location of the wound that determines the lethality of penetrating injuries. Whether knife or gun, a small wound in a vital area can be deadly, where a much larger wound in a non-vital area may only injure. A larger wound, of course, increases the chance of encountering and injuring a vital structure. For firearms, larger wounds are more likely from larger bullet diameter ("caliber"), from expanding bullets, and, in certain cases, from tumbling, yawing, or fragmenting bullets. It is the location and size of the permanent wound channel, the tissue actually destroyed, that primarily determines lethality; the effects of temporary stretching ("cavitation") of elastic tissues or the sonic "shock wave" from a bullet's passage have been greatly exaggerated.12,13 Obtaining a wound in a vital area, of course, depends upon shot placement which is a reflection of marksmanship mitigated by chance; the more skillful the marksman, the smaller the role of luck."
Fackler also indicates the effectiveness of the 5.56x45 round is largely a result of the bullet yawing 180 degrees in the target tissue and fragmenting. Pistol bullets do not generally yaw IIRC, and most do not fragment.
The below is quoted from http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs13.htm
"At distances of 100 yards and under, when the bullet hits the body and yaws through 90 degrees, the stresses on the bullet cause the leading edge to flatten, extruding lead core out the open base, just before it breaks apart at the cannelure. The portion of the bullet forward of the cannelure, the nose, usually remains in one piece and retains about 60 percent of the bullet's original weight. The portion of the bullet aft of the cannelure, the base, violently disintegrates into multiple lead core and copper jacket fragments, which penetrate up to 3-inches radially outward from the wound track. The fragments perforate and weaken the surrounding tissues allowing the subsequent temporary cavity to forcibly stretch and rip open the multiple small wound tracks produced by the fragments. The resulting wound is similar to one produced by a commercial expanding bullet used for varmint hunting, however the maximum tissue damage produced by the military bullet is located at a greater penetration depth.
(The increased wounding effects produced by bullet fragmentation were not well understood until the mid-1980's. Therefore, the wounding effects of the original M16 rifle bullet were not an intentional U.S. military design characteristic.)
At distances between 100-200 yards, the bullet commonly breaks in half at the cannelure forming two large penetrating fragments, the nose and base.
At distances beyond 200 yards the bullet usually remains intact due to velocity decay. It simply yaws 180 degrees to penetrate backwards through the body.
Both the M193 and M855 bullets demonstrate similar terminal performance as described above, when fired from rifles fitted with a 20-inch or longer barrel.
Shooting the M193 or M855 from a rifle with a barrel length less than 14.5-inches produces insufficient muzzle velocity to achieve the terminal performance described above. A rifle fitted with a 14.5-inch barrel is adequate for close-quarters battle. For engagements anticipated at greater than room distance but less than 100 yards, a rifle fitted with a 16.5-inch barrel should be employed to ensure sufficient velocity."
So, my question is this:
Does anyone besides plusp think a rifle in no more than 3% more effective than a handgun at "real" self-defense ranges?
I will stipulate only short military calibers in rifle .223, 7.62x39 and .308. I will also stipulate "defense" calibers in handgun .38, 9mm, .45, .357, .40 (and similar)
I will also stipulate that I have attended the Thunder Ranch Urban Rifle courses and do not believe that at personal defense distances or say in a house (less than 15 yards) a wound in the torso with a .223 will be only 3% more effective than a wound with a .45.
The effectiveness of shotgun is also of interest to me. I would rate a shotgun as more effective than a rifle to a distance of about 10-15 yards. After that distance, I would select a rifle.
Note the importance of bullet placement in the article quoted above. Placement is a lot easier with a rifle. Note also that soft armor will stop all pistol rounds and no soft armor will stop a .223 (IIRC).
The other article I found was: http://www.fen.baynet.de/norbert.arnoldi/army/wound.html
My bottom line--give me a rifle.
Help me understand, please.
(BTW, plusp if you can give me references on teh web for the data you use it will be helpful)
Noel
I must admit that I am not an expert in the terminal ballistics of small arms. However, the statements by plusp in the thread [Link to invalid post] go beyond controversial into misleading or at best incomplete and applicable only in limited circumstances IMO.
In a search for the Suter article, I found this quote from Fackler: (http://www.dipr.org/content/papers/assault_weapons_revisited.html)
"Though some have claimed a particular lethality for assault weapons, a literature review finds instead that assault rifle and weapon wounds more closely approximate handgun injuries than rifle injuries:
[note the distinction made between rifles and assault weapons and AW wounds resemble pistol wounds but still does a rifle give a larger wound or not?]
[M]any AK-47 shots will pass through the body causing no greater damage than that produced by non-expanding handgun bullets. The limited tissue disruption produced by this weapon in the Stockton schoolyard is consistent with well documented data from Vietnam... as well as with controlled research studies from wound ballistic laboratories."
[Note that he says wound ballistics simulations can provide good results]
Fackler goes on:
"In general, it is the size and location of the wound that determines the lethality of penetrating injuries. Whether knife or gun, a small wound in a vital area can be deadly, where a much larger wound in a non-vital area may only injure. A larger wound, of course, increases the chance of encountering and injuring a vital structure. For firearms, larger wounds are more likely from larger bullet diameter ("caliber"), from expanding bullets, and, in certain cases, from tumbling, yawing, or fragmenting bullets. It is the location and size of the permanent wound channel, the tissue actually destroyed, that primarily determines lethality; the effects of temporary stretching ("cavitation") of elastic tissues or the sonic "shock wave" from a bullet's passage have been greatly exaggerated.12,13 Obtaining a wound in a vital area, of course, depends upon shot placement which is a reflection of marksmanship mitigated by chance; the more skillful the marksman, the smaller the role of luck."
Fackler also indicates the effectiveness of the 5.56x45 round is largely a result of the bullet yawing 180 degrees in the target tissue and fragmenting. Pistol bullets do not generally yaw IIRC, and most do not fragment.
The below is quoted from http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs13.htm
"At distances of 100 yards and under, when the bullet hits the body and yaws through 90 degrees, the stresses on the bullet cause the leading edge to flatten, extruding lead core out the open base, just before it breaks apart at the cannelure. The portion of the bullet forward of the cannelure, the nose, usually remains in one piece and retains about 60 percent of the bullet's original weight. The portion of the bullet aft of the cannelure, the base, violently disintegrates into multiple lead core and copper jacket fragments, which penetrate up to 3-inches radially outward from the wound track. The fragments perforate and weaken the surrounding tissues allowing the subsequent temporary cavity to forcibly stretch and rip open the multiple small wound tracks produced by the fragments. The resulting wound is similar to one produced by a commercial expanding bullet used for varmint hunting, however the maximum tissue damage produced by the military bullet is located at a greater penetration depth.
(The increased wounding effects produced by bullet fragmentation were not well understood until the mid-1980's. Therefore, the wounding effects of the original M16 rifle bullet were not an intentional U.S. military design characteristic.)
At distances between 100-200 yards, the bullet commonly breaks in half at the cannelure forming two large penetrating fragments, the nose and base.
At distances beyond 200 yards the bullet usually remains intact due to velocity decay. It simply yaws 180 degrees to penetrate backwards through the body.
Both the M193 and M855 bullets demonstrate similar terminal performance as described above, when fired from rifles fitted with a 20-inch or longer barrel.
Shooting the M193 or M855 from a rifle with a barrel length less than 14.5-inches produces insufficient muzzle velocity to achieve the terminal performance described above. A rifle fitted with a 14.5-inch barrel is adequate for close-quarters battle. For engagements anticipated at greater than room distance but less than 100 yards, a rifle fitted with a 16.5-inch barrel should be employed to ensure sufficient velocity."
So, my question is this:
Does anyone besides plusp think a rifle in no more than 3% more effective than a handgun at "real" self-defense ranges?
I will stipulate only short military calibers in rifle .223, 7.62x39 and .308. I will also stipulate "defense" calibers in handgun .38, 9mm, .45, .357, .40 (and similar)
I will also stipulate that I have attended the Thunder Ranch Urban Rifle courses and do not believe that at personal defense distances or say in a house (less than 15 yards) a wound in the torso with a .223 will be only 3% more effective than a wound with a .45.
The effectiveness of shotgun is also of interest to me. I would rate a shotgun as more effective than a rifle to a distance of about 10-15 yards. After that distance, I would select a rifle.
Note the importance of bullet placement in the article quoted above. Placement is a lot easier with a rifle. Note also that soft armor will stop all pistol rounds and no soft armor will stop a .223 (IIRC).
The other article I found was: http://www.fen.baynet.de/norbert.arnoldi/army/wound.html
My bottom line--give me a rifle.
Help me understand, please.
(BTW, plusp if you can give me references on teh web for the data you use it will be helpful)
Noel
