Rifle stopping effects

R

ramsfan

Inactive
The knock on the 5.56mm is that it zips straight through and has no immediate stopping effect unless it hits vital organs or bone.

Wouldn’t the same be true of the 7.62 NATO round? It’s going to zip straight through also, and if it does not hit vital organs or bone I wouldn’t expect it to produce any different effect.

I can’t imagine that 2mm more diameter would make an immediate difference.

The reason I ask is because it seems to be implied that 7.62 NATO has an immediate effect on the target even if it does not hit a vital or bone.

Is this simply bad information or is there truly some superior special effect that a 7.62 NATO round produces?
 
The reason I ask is because it seems to be implied that 7.62 NATO has an immediate effect on the target even if it does not hit a vital or bone
Click to expand...

this is completely false. No matter how much energy a round has, it isn't significantly lethal unless important structures in the human body are hit.

Even 50cal ain't any different. I've seen some gel results that showed that when the 50cal didn't yaw, the forces exerted against the gel block was no different than a hollow point pistol round.

Unless you are shooting a tank round at somebody, no round is incapacitating unless vitals are hit and preforated.
 
Anybody want to volunteer as test dummy for these theories? I they are correct you'll just need 2 band-aids and you'll be good to go! :D
 
You're missing the two most important facets of external bullet ballistics, and how they "kill"...

Military FMJ's- because expanding bullets are outlawed by the Geneva Convention- are designed to tumble/yaw on after impact. When, and how effectively this happens, depends on the individual round, the velocity on impact and other factors.

Bullets also kill by hydrostatic shock, much in the way someone can be killed by the concussive blast of a mortar or bomb, just by being close enough to the blast. Watch slow motion videos of large caliber bullets being fired into ballistic gel, and it becomes self-evident.

When your guts get turned into a bunch of mush, it doesn't much matter if the bullet had a direct hit on a vital organ.

I'm sure others here can elaborate in much more detail, but those are basics...
 
this is why alot of hunting rounds are hollow points or use some kind of aid to help spread the wound channel. regardless if it is a hp, soft point, polymer tip etc. When talking about hunting this is where knowledge of the critters physiology and shot placement become important. you could hit a deer 10 times in the stomach area and it will run for a long ways. or 1 shot in the right place and you will have a short walk to get your dinner.
 
Modern bullet technology has resulted in a wide variety of bullet construction intended for a wide variety of uses. The main decision we make today, especially for those of us who handload, is much less about what caliber and much more about choosing the correct weight and construction of bullet for the job at hand. For instance a 243 shooting a 95 to 100 gr SST, Nosler Partition or similar hunting bullet may do more damage as it passes through an elk's lungs that a 300 mag in FMJ.
 
No , the cause of death would be a gunshot wound ! So tell us more about forensic pathology . Just how extensive is your education and experience in forensics ? I'm guessing it's right up there with your combat experience ! Hydrostatic shock , not real ? Right ! The earth is flat too .
 
The 5.56 does just fine for most situations. The debate over 5.56 vs 7.62 is really about 2 things. The 7.62 is a better round at exended ranges, and if you hve to shoot through barriers. At the ranges and conditions our troops are using their rifles the 5.56 is equally effective. In rare situations where longer shots must be taken they would be better off with the 7.62.

There are lots of guys who feel our troops would be better off with the larger 7.62 round. I'm not in that camp. For 95% of our needs the lighter weight, more compact, greater ammo capacity, and lower recoiling 5.56 is a much better choice. While the 7.62 is better in some rare situations, why equip our troops with a rifle that would be better only in rare situations, while handicapping them in the situations they are most likely to use their rifle.
 
It isn't just the added 2mm of bullet diameter, those 7.62 bullets weigh a lot more than the 5.56 bullets do. Even a big 5.56 is goung to be under 100 grains while that is on the small end for 7.62. Larger heavier bullets generally penetrate deeper and hold together better than smaller lighter ones. Of course that is a broad generalization and certainly "there are exceptions to every rule" applies...

External ballistics usually refers to the characteristics of the bullet in flight. Terminal ballistics usually refers to the effects of the bullet on the target (game animal or enemy combatant).
 
How in the world did we ever win two world wars with the 30-06 ? They are heavy and kick too much , and you can't carry enough ammo to last 5 mins. ! The WWII grunt had to walk (march) to the battlefield to boot . It must have been a miracle . Since we departed from the .30 Cal. battle rifle , we haven't done better than a tie , and even that's debatable . This opinion is based purely on fact !
 
Bullet placement is vital. The resultant hydrostatic shock associated with high velocity projectiles if occurring near a vital organ may cause enough disruption to incapacitate. It has to occur in an organ containing or composed of a lot of liquid - a full bladder, liver, brain. It could happen, say, the spinal cord but that conceivably would involve some bone being struck.
 
How in the world did we ever win two world wars with the 30-06 ? They are heavy and kick too much , and you can't carry enough ammo to last 5 mins. ! The WWII grunt had to walk (march) to the battlefield to boot . It must have been a miracle . Since we departed from the .30 Cal. battle rifle , we haven't done better than a tie , and even that's debatable . This opinion is based purely on fact
Click to expand...

this was also the last war that had clearly defined enemy combatants wearing a uniform. if fighting in Vietnam or Iraq the enemy troops were wearing a uniform and could be easily identified im sure it would have gone a little different.

look at our own revolution. this is the same thing the British complained about was that we didnt fight in an honorable manor since we wouldn't field armies in uniform for their forces to engage.

the 30-06 caliber was so that our troops would have a fair battlefield with the German troops range wise. and it was the fact that in ww2 most of our troops had semi auto rifles vs every other country using bolt action rifles that gave an advantage.

when the Germans introduced the SG44 in the shorter cartridge we scrambled to do the same thing since this was evolving battlefield policy.

our style of engagement has also changed where in the European theater it was hillsides and open fields it has gone to close combat in heavy jungles and urban environments.

the 5.56 was adopted with the idea that if the round didn't kill someone the resultant medical care for the injured person would require roughly 5 other people to care for him resulting in a lowering of the enemies battle strength. unfortunately for the most part the US army is the only army that makes provisions for saving the lives of wounded combatants even in ww2.
 
7.62 i believe was better, the 5.56 has pros and cons, mostly cons. With that said, the 6.8 would be my choice...
 
I'm skeptical of a "hydrostatic shock" that would turn everything in a targets torso to mush. I would think that if there is a cavitation/hydrostatic effect, any such mush from it would be within an inch or 2 of the bullet path at most.

Thinking of 5.56 and 7.62 in fmj configuration, there is probably not much energy transfered by either round to the target.

If one round "puts em down and they stay down", but the other has to hit a vital organ or bone to have any effect, it just doesn't seem likely that fmj bullets would be much different in terminal effect.
 
I havn't figured out how to quote people yet but isn't that from remingtons custom shop or something? Seems like i heard someone i know saying something about it.
 
The 5.56 military round was designed to tumble upon impact. While the 7.62 may knock a man down, the 5.56 will tumble within the body and do a great deal of damage. In fact, when the Soviets introduced the AK74 the 5.54 round they used had a bit of lead in the center to encourage tumbling upon impact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top