Terminal ballistics of rifle rounds

A 30 caliber 165 grain BT from a .308 will blow your head off at close range. I shot a WT doe that my buddy had crippled up between the eyes at 20 feet. We never found the eyeballs or brain. Everything above the jawline and between the ears was gone. A center chest shot on a human would take out the heart and a significant portion of the spine. :eek: The .223/5.56 and the other misc. "poodle shooters" are designed for varmints. Once again, I return the wisdom of Ruark...use enough gun. :cool:

For self defense (close range) if I had to choose a rifle then give me a magazine fed carbine in .44 or .357 mag. I've seen them used to kill 4 legged bears at close range so it should work on two legged bears just as well. :D
 
For what its worth.

I have seen a few people (not deer or hogs) shot with .223 rifles. All were shot with cheap imported FMJ ammo (not some carefully selected load).
This resulted in massive/dramatic wounds.
 
It's also a question of what it hits. A story from Africa: I shot a jackal, about the size of a large housecat, with a 300 Mag. It was a 200 gr Hawk round nose, a bullet offering good expansion. It was over 100 yards, but I'm sure the bullet still had plenty of zip. It happened to strike the liver, an organ with a dense, fluid consistency. Everyone else said the animal became a red spot, then was clearly seen bouncing off the ground. The stomach was outside of the body, still hooked up, and the liver was never found. Granted, that is an extreme example - I didn't happen to have a 223 handy at the moment - but that would be called instant and complete incapacitation.
 
"Poodle shooter"

A term I hear often... Yet the m16 and the round it fired, from what I have read, were feared by the enemy during Vietnam. As the round did massive damage when it hit.

This was a 55gr FMJ...
 
You'd be hard pressed to find a centerfire rifle that does less "massive" damage. There's always the .222 I guess. Small caliber plus a projectile that doesn't expend and frequently just punches a .224 hole is not a recipe for effective terminal ballistics. Is it better than nothing? Sure. Better than a pistol caliber? Sure. Better than a rifle caliber suited to shooting 200-300lb animals? Not even close.
 
From what information I have read... It was the m14 and it's 7.62 round that did the hole punching and the m16 and it's5.56 55gr FMJ that caused more devastating wounds.

The 556 would tumble and break up causing a larger wound path... The 762 would not.
 
Perhaps you didn't pay attention to what I actually said. I recommend something suitable for game animals of similar size. Generally speaking .308 FMJ is not suitable for that. Neither is a varmint round.

Thankfully the world does not consist solely of those two choices. A .308 Accubond or TBBC load or even a Core-Lokt is suitable, and can be fired out of the exact same gun.
 
I am simply disputing the claim that a 223/556 can not be effective... But apparently even a FMJ can be effective, if it tumbles and fragments quickly.


Also I am postulating that traditional thought on penetration depth and bullet effectiveness may not be as cut and dry as many think.


Sure, more than you need is nice to have, but in some situations, like defense in a home or apartment, too much can be a liability. In that situation, you need to find a balance of power and limiting penetration through barriers and the target.

I'm not simply talking about killing deer in a field.
 
This is why I love the M193 55gr ball round. It does very, very nasty things to unarmored targets and stops in about 13-15" of gel. Makes you wonder what we were thinking when we went to M855.

http://youtu.be/6hJZdtPcVdE

Makes perfect sense for a self defense round for someone on a budget. Hunting round not so much (I hear copper and lead don't taste so great).
 
I am simply disputing the claim that a 223/556 can not be effective...
Click to expand...
The issue is not whether it "can" be effective. BBs kill humans with some regularity. That doesn't make them a suitable choice for any game bigger than a rabbit.

The issue is whether a given load is more or less effective, and varmint rounds used on 200-300lb targets are definitely in the "less effective than desired" category regardless of bullet technology, although a premium expanding bullet that retains mass will do better than one that falls apart or a FMJ.
 
Makes you wonder what we were thinking when we went to M855.
Click to expand...
They were trying to fix the poor terminal performance of M193 while retaining low grade armor penetration in the M4. They more or less failed at the first goal, and succeeded at the second.
 
The M855 was adopted before the M4. It's my understanding that it was adopted to conform to the NATO ss109 standard which was created to penetrate 3.5mm of steel at 600m. I don't think any thought was given to improving the terminal ballistics of the m193 cartridge which was already better then the 7.62x51 cartridge it replaced.
 
m193 terminal performance is not good. The only way it does substantial damage is if yaw induced fragmentation occurs. Yaw has numerous downsides - it's unpredictable, gun dependent, and when it occurs it negatively impacts accuracy and ballistic coefficient.

m855 is basically in the same boat, doesn't come apart as easily, and is typically fired out of faster twist guns so there's less yaw.

The MK262 and M118LR SMK loads have a similar situation as well, but the the jacket is thinner and the small hollow point makes it want to come apart. These are the most effective military loads for terminal performance right now, which is not saying much.

m80 ball is not one bullet design (jacket material varies), but AFAIK none of them are good although they won't shrink to .223, which is a start ;)

Basically military ammo is the Special Olympics of terminal ballistics. Being the best still means it sucks.
 
not-this-again.jpg
 
marine6680 said:
I was thinking about rifle round terminal ballistics after watching a few gel tests.





In the tests, and pretty much every gel test of rifle ammo that I seen that had a self defense slant to it... All used the FBI pistol round testing to discuss effectiveness of the round. With the 12-18 inches of penetration being considered key.





Now, for pistol rounds, it has always been stated that due to the fact that they only really do effective damage through direct contact destruction of tissues... That was the reason for the minimum penetration of 12 inches. You needed the penetration to reach vital areas, as there is no secondary wounding present in pistol terminal effects.





People doing gel tests on rifle rounds, and people on forums also use the 12-18 inch range to determine the worth of rifle rounds for defensive use.



But with rifle rounds we also talk about things like cavitation and hydrostatic shock... Secondary wounding methods present in rifle rounds.





To me it seems that if we hold those two effects as relevant to the round's performance, then maybe the 12 inch minimum is not as important with a rifle round.



The 18" maximum might be a good thing to consider, for the same reasons as it is with pistol rounds.





So am I off base thinking that a round that does not meet the 12" minimum could still be very effective in defense use?



I'm not saying a round that only penetrates 5-6 inches is good, but maybe one that can do 8-10 inches, especially if it dumps a lot of energy and causes large wound paths. These do tend to be 223/556 rounds in the 50-55gr range, hollow point or ballistic tip type.



It may even be worth considering due to the much lowered chance of over penetration, definitely not of any fragments that would continue to pose mortal wounding capabilities.



I have noticed that rounds in this range of penetration, when tested for barrier penetration, tend to break up quickly when passing through typical interior walls, to the point of being several small fragments by the time it passes through one wall.





So are we using the FBI pistol standard of 12-18 inches simply because we have no comparable standard for rifle rounds, or because it is actually important/relevant?
Click to expand...



Well. I think we need to consider what we are discussing in terms of use before standards can be determined. Are we talking about effective on humans? If so...where? What kind? Battlefield or police or self defense? Hunting? Competition?

Personally? I feel the .223/5.56 is just fine for self defense or police use. Targets are not going to have armor on. Range isn't going to be a HUGE deal, and OVER penetration is a BIG deal. You should want a round that dumps every last bit of the maximum amount of energy as possible. Rounds going out the other side are BAD because they can hit others (potentially).

Military has to consider range and the possibility of armored targets. So. What are we talking here? Pure self defense? Or police? Or what?

I find the .223 to be too small for hunting anything except small game because to me...animals tend to be a hell of a lot tougher than humans.
 
Bob... You are really the only person I have seen dispute the claim that the 55gr load used in Vietnam was a poor performer.

Now, it may have lost some effectiveness when the twist rate of the rifles were increased, but that is outside the whole point of the subject matter.

What is good enough, or more than enough varies based on the desired outcomes and situation. So, while a good 308 round would be much more effective stopper than an equivalent 223 for a given animal of 4 or 2 legs... It is not always the best choice, based on the situation and desired outcomes.

Stone... This originally started as an abstract discussion about judging rifle round performance using the criteria of the FBI handgun testing. Mostly with a self defense slant...
 
Bob... You are really the only person I have seen dispute the claim that the 55gr load used in Vietnam was a poor performer.
Click to expand...
That's funny, because I've yet to see a ballistician recommend it. The recommended loads are consistently soft points, tipped, and/or bonded. That or expanding copper.
while a good 308 round would be much more effective stopper than an equivalent 223 for a given animal of 4 or 2 legs
Click to expand...
Well, we've made some progress :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top