[Nightcrawler]

Assuming the same kind of bullet, what is the difference between a wound from a handgun and a wound from a rifle? Rifle rounds, depending on calibert, typically will push bullets weighing about the same as many handgun bullets, the just go a lot faster.

So what's the difference if you get hit with a 200 grain bullet if it comes from a 10mm pistol round or a .30 caliber rifle round? (1300-ish FPS vs 2400+)

What difference does it make in soft tissue? I'm assuming the added velocity will make a much bigger "splash"; (dropping a rock in water vs. throwing it in). But unlike water, human tissue is elastic and will often stretch back.

What difference does it make if the bullet hits bone?

Is the only advantage of a rifle the ability to retain its energy at longer ranges than a handgun? Are they really any more likely to incapacitate with one shot? Why or why not?

[TheeBadOne]

The larger temporary stretch cavity also causes larger more massive tears, ie: more damage.

[Mark Tyson]

I thought the "temporary stretch cavity" was an area of some controversy, and that the jury was still out on how much damage it does.

[Preacherman]

There are several factors of importance. First, energy transfer is critical. If a super-duper felon-stopper Magnum-blaster hits someone with (say) 2,000 foot-pounds of energy, but slices straight through and exits without transferring that energy to the target, it's not going to have much visible impact. This is why 9mm. FMJ has such a poor record as a "stopping" round: it punches straight through. A JHP, slowing down much more rapidly in the body, is likely to transfer most, if not all, of its energy to the target, making it much more effective.

Second, the energy transferred translates into much greater wound volume and effect. A .30 caliber bullet fired from a handgun (say, .32 ACP or .32 H&R Magnum) will hit a target at (say) 1,000 fps. The same weight and caliber bullet, fired from a rifle, will hit at (say) 3,000 fps. Assuming that both rounds stop in the body of the target and transfer all of their energy, you're talking about a HUGE difference in wounding effect.

Finally, there's the phenomenon of hydrostatic shock. The body is made up mostly of water. Virtually no handgun round attains velocities high enough to produce "shock waves" through soft tissue, etc.: but most rifle rounds do. This is related to the phenomenon known as the temporary wound cavity: the stretching and pushing aside of soft tissue by the passage of the bullet. If you drop a small stone into a pond, you'll see the ripples going out from the point of impact - fairly small, usually. Throw that rock into the water at much higher speed, and the ripples are much bigger and the surface of the water much more agitated. Same thing with a bullet: higher speed = greater tissue "agitation", bigger "ripples", and much more wound effect (provided that the energy of the bullet is transferred to the target, of course).

[bluecowdawg]

this is not a scientific test only an observation on my part,i do a lot of hog hunting where i live and i try to see what kind of damage is done on the inside when i make a kill. i have shot pigs with a 30.06, a .357, 30-30,and a .45acp,(the later just to put them out of their misery). the .357 and the .45 did kill the animal and the wound on the inside of their head was not very impresive but did do some damage and killed the animal,btw the pistol shots were within 15 feet, however i once shot a hog in the left side of his neck with the 30-06,a broadside shot, and he went down when i cleaned this pig the damage on the inside was so massive ,the only thing holding his head on was the hide on the left side of his neck. i also shot a nother in the right shoulder and completely shattered his right and left shoulder so badly that i had to trash the left side. the pistol rounds were .45acp golden sabre's, and the .357 were jhp. the rifle rounds were winchester 150gr silvertips. i amazed at how much damage these rounds can do. my personal conclusion, while i would not want to be shot with either, i dont think a pistol round could even come close to the kind of wound damage a rifle round can cause, i think if you shot a human body with a 30-06 150gr winchester silvertip it would be very possible to to remove a limb. just my opinion.btw the pig shot in the neck with the rifle was shot from about 10yrds away, and wieghed 264lbs.

[SunBear]

For lots of info on wound ballistics go to tacticalforums.com then go to the terminal effects forum and do a search. Happy trails.

[444]

I know this doesn't do you any good, but if you see a handgun wound next to a rifle wound, you will never forget the difference. I have seen wounds from 5.56, 7.62x39, and 7.62 NATO , and .30-30 rifles. I have seen wounds from all manner of handguns from .22s and .25s up to 10mm and .44 Mag. The damage from a rifle wound is massive. Handgun wounds aren't all that dramatic.

[CWL]

Sorry to put some science into this discussion but there's a really good layman's site re military wound patterns.

It was written by Dr. M. Fackler, Military pathologist, who has operated on combat casualties as well as autopsies and conducted some of the earliest balastic gelatin testing. Contrary to Marshall and Sanow, Dr. Fackler bases his observations on medical & scientific processes.

I've seen some combat wounds and I'd rather get hit by a SovBlok/Chicom 7.62x39 than any load of .223 myself.

http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html

[444]

"'ve seen some combat wounds and I'd rather get hit by a SovBlok/Chicom 7.62x39 than any load of .223 myself."

I will second that.

[zahc]

From hunting I'm totally agreeing with the 'rifle wound>>>>>>handgun wound' testimonies. I also agree a well placed rifle round could remove a limb.


And high velocity seems to be a true cause of massively sick wounds. Weird how a 55gr bullet could cause so much more havoc than a 230gr one.

[Nightcrawler]

My next question is this.

Fragmentation is desirable if it occurs inside the body of a badguy, correct?

However, can you design a bullet that ONLY fragments in soft tissue? I've heard people say that because of fragmentation, 5.56mm will penetrate less than a pistol round (through mulitple barriers). (This seems false with FMJ ammunition, though true with the 40 grain hollow points, as very light bullets are typically very poor at penetrating mulitple barriers anyway.)

I ask becasue, at least in a military standpoint, YOU WANT PENTRATION. Your service round needs to be able to punch through logs, trees, walls, body armor, helmets, and if possible, sandbags.

It seems to me that a bullet that broke up on impact would be very poor at penetrating these types of things (especially thick, soft things like trees and logs).

So what's the REAL scoop, Re; fragmentation vs. penetration?

[benEzra]

Regarding "hydrostatic shock," all rifle bullets are well below the speed of sound in tissue, so they do not actually produce shock waves. Any bullet produces (1) a temporary stretch cavity and (2) a pressure pulse in the vascular system, and this effect is a continuum from the smallest handgun round to the highest-velocity rifle. Temporary stretch causes damage whenever the amount of stretch exceeds the elastic limit of the tissue in question (which for connective tissue is quite high, and for nerves is quite low), and the pressure pulse can cause incapacition effects by activating vascular stretch reflexes, potentially causing an immediate and precipitous drop in blood pressure. Such effects are unpredictable, which is what leads Fackler et al to ignore it. I disagree with their trying to define it out of existence, however; that which cannot be easily quantified and that which does not exist are not one and the same.

Fackler et al set an arbitrary velocity limit for such effects somewhere in the 2000's fps, but the key factor IMO would be displacement rather than velocity per se (although displacement correlates well with velocity in any given load).

[benEzra]

However, can you design a bullet that ONLY fragments in soft tissue?
That was, I believe, a primary rationale behind the (now Triton) Quick-Shok. I'm not sure if it's available in rifle calibers, however.

[George Hill]

"all rifle bullets are well below the speed of sound in tissue"

Not really. Depends on caliber and load. Many rifle rounds would fly through a person so fast it would only barely even slow it down.
Apply "All Rifle Bullets" to a .338 Win Mag. 7MM Rem Mag. Or even .30-06.

[zahc]

or 220 swift.

[Nightcrawler]

The reason I ask about the fragmenting FMJ rifle rounds is because of the apparent desirability of the fragmenting 5.56mm ammunition (and apparently the 7.62mm Hirtenberger ammo as well).

Does this increased wounding capacity come at the expense of armor/cover penetration? Why or why not? If not, how do these rounds ONLY fragment in human bodies?

[444]

They don't fragment ONLY when hitting the human body, they fragment when they hit anything, providing they are moving fast enough. Yes, this means that you are sacrificing penetration.

I was recently reading about "blended metal technology" bullets that do what you are talking about. They are AP, but when they hit anything that isn't metal, they fragment. They do this alledgedly through the action of heat on these blended metals. If the bullets don't get hot because they are in contact with a good conductor, they stay together. When they hit something that doesn't conduct the heat, they come apart. Here is a link where they discuss it: http://www.militarycity.com/blackwater/videos.html

[Nightcrawler]

444, if that is the case, I'd say that troops were better off with the non-fragmenting ammo than the supposedly desirable fragmenting stuff.

You WANT to be able to defeat cover on the battlefield. Espeically in weapons like your machine guns that are often used against more hardened targets at longer ranges. Ball is okay, AP is better. (A 7.62x51mm machine gun with AP ammo represents a serious risk to unarmored helicopters, such as the Mi-8, Huey, Blackhawk, etc.)

[444]

As you can see, designing the ultimate military bullet is not easy. You want good performance on humans, and the ability to penetrate light armor; two things that don't go together.
Then of course you have the factors of weight, recoil, controllability, cost, ................................
As civilians, we don't have these problems to anywhere near the degree the military does.

[Shawn Dodson]

I thought the "temporary stretch cavity" was an area of some controversy, and that the jury was still out on how much damage it does. With centerfire rifle bullets, the temporary cavity (TC) can be a significant wounding mechanism. Whereas handgun bullets generally produce a TC that's too small to reliably damage tissues. I've heard people say that because of fragmentation, 5.56mm will penetrate less than a pistol round (through mulitple barriers). (This seems false with FMJ ammunition, though true with the 40 grain hollow points, as very light bullets are typically very poor at penetrating mulitple barriers anyway.) I refer you to the article, "Wounding Effects of the U.S. Military M193 (M16A1) and M855 (M16A2) Bullet Cartridges," located at http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs13.htm Regarding "hydrostatic shock," all rifle bullets are well below the speed of sound in tissue, so they do not actually produce shock waves. Every bullet produces a "sonic pressure wave," which is benign in effect in soft tissues, but can fracture bone, depending on amplitude. In head shots, fissures produced in cranial bone often beat the bullet to the opposite side of the head because the sonic pressure wave travels at a little less than 5000 fps, which is faster than most centerfire rifle bullets.

Hydrostatic shock can damage tissues at the cellular level -- the static pressure transmitted from cell to cell can rupture cell walls. The effect is similar to stomping on a packet of ketchup.

[kenehsr]

I say. Whats just go out to the range and test. :uhoh: :eek:



:neener: just kidden:p

[Quartus]

I ask becasue, at least in a military standpoint, YOU WANT PENTRATION. Your service round needs to be able to punch through logs, trees, walls, body armor, helmets, and if possible, sandbags.


Yes, that's what you WANT, but you don't get it with a 7.62. SOME of those things sometimes, but ALL of them never.

But there are other trade-offs to consider. Remember the old adage, "A hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .44" Training the average grunt to hit reliably with a 5.56 is easier than with a 7.62. For hunting it may not matter, but on the battlefield you need to be able to soak up recoil all day long, and still shooting straight.

And then there's the little matter of how much can you carry. It doesn't matter how strong and fit you are, everyone can carry more 5.56 than they can 7.62. Yes, Ahnuld can probably carry more 7.62 than some folks can 5.56. But that's not the issue. Ahnuld can carry more 5.56 than he can 7.62. And so can I, and so can you.

It all counts. Before you argue wounding capability, you have to hit the target. You can't hit the target reliably if you have a bad flinch. And you can't hit the target AT ALL if you are out of ammo.

And what is your application? If I'm defending my rural house against a pack of looters, I want a 7.62. If I'm humpint the jungles of Borneo looking for some terrorists, I probably want a 5.56.

Trade-offs.


BTW, the folks at firearmstactical are HIGHLY controversial. There are some folks who worship the groud they walk on, and consider their Words to be on the level of Divine Revalation. Question them and you deserve death.

Others consider them The Great Satan of terminal ballistics, having neither honest motives nor three brain cells among them. All they write is LIES LIES LIES!!!!


The truth is probably somewhere in between. ;)

[geekWithA.45]

I'm speaking from my experience with 5.56 rounds, both M193 (fmj) and SS109 AP.

My understanding is that the rounds are designed to begin tumbling after first impact, but that DOESN'T mean they shatter on impact.

When they tumble through a thick medium, such as humans or ballistic gelatin, the forces exerted on the bullet tear it apart, and it fragments. In air, they don't fragment.


Illustration: A few weekends ago we taped targets on a steel drum. The SS109 rounds drilled straight through, but the m193 would tumble after impacting the first wall, and would EXIT the rear wall in a sideways, keyhole fashion.

Now, if you can punch through 1/8 inch sideways, after having punched through another 1/8 inch of steel a mere 24 inches before, it seems to me that you're still gonna put the hurt on the next thing you hit.

Anyway, that's the deal on fragmenting bullets. Fragmenting is NOT frangible.

Next topic:

Why fragment? Why not expand?

Excellent question, and the subject of much religious debate.

Ready? Fight!

[Nightcrawler]

I wasn't trying to turn this into a 5.56mm vs 7.62mm debate.

Frankly, if you think the recoil of a typical 7.62mm self-loading rifle is too much, you really don't belong in the infantry.

You want penetration out of your 5.56mm rounds as much as you do your 7.62mm ones; however, 5.56mm has a much smaller bullet and, even with the higher velocity, doesn't match the momenthum of 7.62mm. Take a look at Military studies regarding what each round will penetrate at certain ranges.

(Interestingly enough, 7.62x51mm seems to penetrate better at 100 yards than it does at the muzzle.)

And you're right, you're not going to be able to defeat all things all the time. So why worsen your odds by having a bullet that shatters when penetrating?

I've heard that they're testing heavier 5.56mm bullets, something like 70 grains, that are supposed to have better penetration (with the heavier bullet weight, you get better retained energy downrange and more monethum). A heavier bullet is also less affected by the wind, and it strikes me that this is the direction to go. You're not giving anything up and you're improving the performance of the round.

Why not expand? Because that would violate the Hague Accords, and if we did it everybody else would too. Also, remember the importance of penetration. Hollow point rounds penetrate less than FMJ ones; you don't want your rounds stopping in your enemy's armor, nor do you want it fragmenting in the wall he's hiding behind.

[benEzra]

"all rifle bullets are well below the speed of sound in tissue"

Not really. Depends on caliber and load. Many rifle rounds would fly through a person so fast it would only barely even slow it down.
Oops, I didn't make myself clear. I meant below the speed of sound in tissue, which is somewhere north of 5000 fps if I remember correctly. You are right that they will still be above the roughly 1100 fps speed of sound in air.

My point was that it's not properly called a "shock wave" since a projectile that is subsonic in a given medium does not produce a shock wave in that medium. (I know, picky, picky.)

[Quartus]

I wasn't trying to turn this into a 5.56mm vs 7.62mm debate.


Me nuther! Just pointing out that there are tradeoffs. The decision is not clear cut. BTW, have you tried shooting several hundred rounds of 7.62 in a short space of time? Might change your mind about handling recoil. But then again, what YOU can do or JOE SHOOTER can do isn't really the issue when you are deciding on a combat rifle for infantry types. It's about what Joe AVERAGE can do. And, like carrying ammo, EVERYONE can take less recoil better than they can take MORE recoil.


BTW, folks, the 5.56 was not DESIGNED to tumble. It does sometimes, and sometimes not, but it wasn't DESIGNED to do so.

So tell me, Oh Dissenters, why is the 5.56 the only round that is "designed to tumble" when it has the same characteristics as many other rifle rounds that were NOT designed to tumble? And what is it about its design that makes it tumble?

[cordex]

why is the 5.56 the only round that is "designed to tumble" when it has the same characteristics as many other rifle rounds that were NOT designed to tumble? And what is it about its design that makes it tumble?
5,56mm isn't the only bullet that tumbles.

Rear-weighted bullets of all kinds of calibers happily become unstable and reverse themselves putting the heaviest part forward. Good ol' Spitzer.

Now, it just so happens that because of the design of the military 5,56mm bullets, they tend to tumble at a reasonably early point in the wound, and have a thin enough jacket that they can reliably break up when fired into tissue at a high enough velocity.

Or so I grok.

[Quartus]

EggsTACKLY! There are plenty of rounds that will tumble, but you don't hear about them being "designed to tumble". Somehow that only applies to the Evil Leg Blowing Off 5.56 mm.


The Urban Legend That Wouldn't Die! :what:

[444]

"Unlike most FMJ rounds, M193 and M855's primary wounding mechanism is fragmentation. This is a good thing because without fragmentation these rounds otherwise would act like a ice pick and cause very little damage because of their small size. At the proper velocity, both M855 and M193 strike flesh and immediately begin to yaw (tumble). Contrary to rumor and popular media belief, this is not unique to these rounds. All FMJ bullets with tapered noses will tumble in flesh with enough velocity, because their center of gravity is aft of their length center--causing them to want to travel "tail first" in denser mediums (like water and tissue).

If the rounds are moving fast enough when they yaw to about 90 degrees of their original trajectory the stress on the bullet from traveling sideways through a dense medium (tissue) will overcome the structural integrity of the bullet and it will start to break up.

If the velocity is high enough this breaking up is pretty dramatic and causes equally dramatic wounds. This is because the fragments travel rapidly through the temporarily crushed tissue and tear it. Most tissue is very elastic and will stretch quite far before returning to its normal shape (this is called the temporary crush cavity) but the addition of quickly moving fragments makes permanent the cavity that might otherwise have returned after the impact and therefore creates a much larger wound."

http://www.ammo-oracle.com/

[Shawn Dodson]

...this is called the temporary crush cavity... I've been meaning to get ahold of Troy and have him correct this error.

It should read: ...this is called the temporary cavity....

[Newton]

So, now being intellectually armed with all this 5.56mm uberammo information about tumbling, fragmentation, cavitation, sonic pressure waves, and 15cm exit wounds, I am left with just one question.

How come the grunts are having to shoot people 6 times to stop them, and are picking up the ballistically inferior 7.62x39mm weapons when they get a chance (I know the reasons for this aren't that simple - but it is happening - AGAIN).

7.62x39mm isn't supposed to kill people very effectively, it seems the only thing it can't do in reality, is read technical reports on it's lack of effectiveness. 5.56mm performs wonderfully on Al Quaeda gelatin blocks wearing denim head scarves, but in the real world it just "icepicks" people.

I am SO confused by this gulf between theoretical and actual performance, can anyone answer THAT question, I just don't see inadequate barrel length being the only reason (that poor orphan the M4) ?

[cordex]

How come the grunts are having to shoot people 6 times to stop them...?
Because real people don't fly back sixteen feet through a plate glass window every time they're shot with a real gun.
Because small arms in general aren't great shakes at "manstopping" - doesn't matter if you're usting .308 short or .223 or .300 SUPERDUPERUBERMAGNUM ... shot placement is the key.
Because in real life, people can be hurt extremely badly - even mortally - and keep fighting.
Because six shots is two pulls of the trigger when set to burst, and can be fired in less than a second on auto and that's hardly enough time for someone to even realize they're shot, much less stop fighting.

5,56mm does it's job well enough for me. And the vast majority of real US combat troops (as opposed to x-ray techs and supply crews) are pretty happy with it too.

[brownie0486]

It's not a battle rifle. They [ BR'S ] don't have the problem of put down.

Lots of m-14's brought out of mothballs for the latest fights in Iraq and Affieland.

.223 is for varmits under critters up to about 70 pounds reliably. After that it's iffy. When the poo is flying, iffy doesn't get it.

We [ the US military ] are learning all over the benefits of the BR and it's no nonsense killing power on humans, that is why we are they isn't it.

The 223 has a place somewhere but it is not on the battle fields of the world. For that you need a battle rifle.

Brownie

[Quartus]

5.56mm performs wonderfully on Al Quaeda gelatin blocks wearing denim head scarves, but in the real world it just "icepicks" people


Well, if that were true, the explantion would be that the current ammo/rifle has enough lower velocity to make a big difference in the wound it creates. (It is a big difference.)



Any and all proponents of the "icepick" theory are welcome to come to the range with me for a demonstration. (Assuming the range is in some third world hole with bribable authorities and no extradition treaties with the US.) We'll blindfold you, shoot you once with the current mil spec ammo and rifle, once with the VietNam era versions, and once with a "real man's BATTLE RIFLE" and you can tell us which was which.





:rolleyes:

[Shawn Dodson]

...in the real world it just "icepicks" people. Two reasons:[list=1]
The 62gr M855 cartridge is being fired from an M4 carbine, which has a 14.5" barrel. The M855 was designed for the M249 SAW, which has a barrel length of ~20", similar to the M16A2 rifle. The shorter barrel length of the M4 carbine robs the bullet of velocity needed to fragment when it yaws.
M855 bullets exhibit variations in terminal performance. Some bullets yaw and fragment while others yaw.
[/list=1]

[MeekandMild]

Remembering the training I had at the infamous Fort Sam Houston goat-shoot, and from my deer hunting experiance, when you want to remove damaged muscle, et cetera from around a supersonic bullet wound you have to cut out a hole roughly 30 times the diameter of the bullet.

OTOH, from my experiance looking at holes made by the "Saturday Night Metropolitan Knife and Gun Club" subsonic wounds are more of the "ice pick" variety. Fat ice picks, but ice picks nevertheless, especially the .25, .32 and .380 wounds.

Many variables here.

Like the aerospace engineers say, in theory there is no difference between theory and practice but in practice there is.

[Newton]

Any and all proponents of the "icepick" theory are welcome to come to the range with me for a demonstration. (Assuming the range is in some third world hole with bribable authorities and no extradition treaties with the US.) We'll blindfold you, shoot you once with the current mil spec ammo and rifle, once with the VietNam era versions, and once with a "real man's BATTLE RIFLE" and you can tell us which was which.

An ironically accurate description of current conflicts, except the blindfolds are typically worn 4 inches higher.