MAJ's Dean and LaFontaine's Infantry Magazine article entitled, “Small Caliber Lethality: 5.56MM Performance in Close Quarters Battle”, in the September-October 2006 issue suffers from ignoring significant amounts of data collected by the JSWB-IPT. MAJ’s Dean and LaFontaine also show a strong prejudice for and an over-reliance on the flawed ARL computer calculations to determine “lethality”. Nonetheless, the article is better than expected based on previous erroneous information publicly released this past summer by the Army on the JSWB-IPT findings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
p.26 “Wound Ballistics (JSWB) Integrated Product Team (IPT) was eventually able to conclude that: (1) there were no commercially available 5.56mm solutions that provided a measurable increase in CQB performance over fielded military ammunition”
Anybody who has seen the actual data from some 10,000 test shots collected by the JSWB-IPT at 3-10m, 100m, and 300m distances or who has read the original 331 page final draft report dated 12 April 2006, knows that this statement avoids the factual truth. The clear and unequivocal best performing cartridge in the JSWB-IPT was 6.8 mm. In addition, several other 5.56 mm loads performed better than current M855. This was validated by other recent military and law enforcement agency (LE) testing—all of which repeatedly have demonstrated that 6.8 mm offers the best terminal performance of ALL assault rifle calibers tested to date. Of course MAJ’s Dean and LaFontaine know this, as the JSWB-IPT remarked that: “The 6.8 mm projectile had a near optimal balance of MASS, VELOCITY, and CONFIGURATION to maintain its effectiveness, even at a lower impact velocity.”
p.28 “Unfortunately, after that work had been completed and static firings of a wide range of calibers and configurations of ammunition were under way (see Figure 1), the IPT discovered that results were still not consistent.”
The Figure 1 photo is interesting, as it illustrates some of the 53 systems in eight different calibers: 9 mm, .45 ACP, 5.45x39 mm, 5.56 mm, 6.8 mm, 7.62x39 mm, 7.62x51 mm, and .30-06 that were studied by the JSWB-IPT. The quote is also informative, as it proves that the JSWB-IPT did indeed conduct substantial testing on calibers other than 5.56 mm. Yet why do MAJ’s Dean and LaFontaine want to ignore thousands of test shots from calibers other than 5.56 mm when discussing the IPT findings? Because the results were “inconsistent”??? Perhaps instead it is because calibers other than 5.56 mm were deemed to be superior, as demonstrated when the JSWB-IPT wrote: “The best performing systems emphasizing tissue damage, on the average, in this study were of larger caliber than 5.56 mm.”
p.29 “Static CQB Analysis methods measure real damage in gel, but have difficulty translating that damage to results in human tissue.”
While this is the position taken by ARL and PM-MAS, most other wound ballistic researchers do not ascribe to the ARL “dynamic” Wound Task Assessment (WTAI) methodology; many researchers, including Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory and progenitor of modern wound ballistic research, have strongly criticized the flawed ARL computer modeling and statistical manipulation. In fact, virtually every noted wound ballistic researcher and facility in the nation DISAGREES with ARL's methodology and conclusions
In addition, the comment on p.29 is not accurate based on the significant amount of data collected by LE agencies when analyzing their officer involved shooting (OIS) incidents. There is great value in the use of appropriately gathered and interpreted surgical and/or post-mortem data. Gene Wolberg's San Diego PD analysis of nearly 150 officer involved shootings was the first study to begin using such protocols, but other LE agencies, such as the FBI and CHP, that have strong, scientifically based ammunition terminal performance testing programs have conducted similar reviews of their shooting incidents with much the same results--there is an extremely strong correlation between properly conducted and interpreted 10% ordnance gelatin laboratory studies and the physiological effects of projectiles in actual shooting incidents.
On the other hand, over the past 20 years, ARL has NEVER published any information in peer reviewed journals or demonstrated to the wound ballistic research community any correlation of their “dynamic” WTAI computer simulation “lethality” methodology with actual shots into living human tissue.
p.29 “The JSWB IPT began work to standardize test protocols among the participating agencies to allow results to be compared.”
This is true…and the test protocol that was found to be correct, valid, and became the agreed upon JSWB-IPT “standard” evolved from the one first developed by Dr. Fackler at LAIR in the 1980’s, promoted by the IWBA in the 1990’s, and used by most reputable wound ballistic researchers, including the FBI BRF and CHP for the past two decades…the main folks who object to this standard are ARL and PM-MAS.
p.29 “The IPT was ultimately able to determine a reason for the differences.”
While this first sentence is true, the remainder of this paragraph is not. The apparent differences in 5.56 mm performance were obvious on viewing high speed video of the projectiles’ flight paths from muzzle to impact and noting the differences in yaw behavior. Discovering this had NOTHING to do with the ARL “dynamic” methodology which uses the flawed computer simulated “virtual human target” (ie. a naked man with his hands at his sides standing directly 90 degrees frontal to the shooter).
As touched upon by MAJ’s Dean and LaFontaine on p.31, Angle-of-Attack (AOA) variability at impact can substantially affect wound severity; this factor is more prevalent with certain calibers and projectile types. JSWB-IPT testing demonstrated that 5.56 mm projectiles are highly susceptible to AOA variations, particularly when using full metal jacket (FMJ) loads such as M193 & M855. For example, with 5.56 mm FMJ, at higher AOA’s, for example 2-3 degrees, bullets had a shorter neck length (NL) and upset rapidly, thus providing adequate terminal effects; at low AOA, like 0-1 degree, the projectiles penetrated deeper than ideal prior to initial upset (ie. long NL) with significantly reduced terminal effects. Note that OTM’s were less susceptible to AOA variations than FMJ. Other calibers were less susceptible to AOA variations than 5.56 mm; the 6.8 mm proved to have less AOA inconsistencies compared with other calibers tested.
Fleet Yaw is the other significant yaw issue discovered by the JSWB-IPT. Fleet Yaw is the terminal performance variation caused by inherent variability in each rifle and occurs in all calibers. 5.56 mm FMJ appears to suffer more Fleet Yaw induced variability than other projectile calibers & types. 6.8 mm OTM’s appear to have less Fleet Yaw variations than other projectile calibers & types tested.
What this means is that two shooters firing the same lot of M855 from their M4’s with identical shot placement can have dramatically different terminal performance results: one shooter states that his M855 is working great and is effective at dropping bad guys, while the other complains his opponent is not being incapacitated because M855 is zipping right through the target without upsetting. Both shooters are telling the truth…
p.30 Graph labeled “Figure 3”
There were in fact better performing 5.56 mm loads than M855 in the JSWB-IPT testing and 6.8 mm clearly performed best of all. The “Figure 3” graph is misleading at best and is an example of scientific dishonesty at worst. It uses needlessly complex calculations, skewed graphing, overzealous mathematical averaging, and poor statistical manipulation to obfuscate important differences between test samples.
p30. “1. No commercially available alternatives perform measurably better than existing ammunition at close quarters battle ranges for exposed frontal targets.”
This is NOT true, as clearly proven by the JSWB-IPT test data. The JSWB-IPT listed the Effective Damage Rankings (EDR) of the 53 different systems tested; 6.8 mm systems (including 20”, 16”, and 12.5” barrels) dominated the testing, taking 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 6th places. The best performing 5.56 mm system was Mk262 in 7th place. M855 out of a 20” barrel managed to squeak into 10th place. Despite MAJ Dean’s and LaFontaine’s assurance to the contrary, 5.56 mm M855, especially fired out of shorter barreled weapons like the Mk18 and M4 is not a wise choice for CQB. If you need a barrel shorter than 16”, 6.8 mm is a better CQB option than 5.56 mm. In fact, in assessing the end-users request for weapons with increased incapacitation potential, as well as their desire for more easily maneuvered weapons, the JSWB-IPT declared that, “The 6.8 mm performance observed in this test suggests that an intermediate caliber is the answer to the trade-off balance issue.”
p30. “2. Shot placement trumps all other variables; expectation management is key.”
Wound Ballistics is the study of the projectile-tissue interaction. The goal of terminal ballistic analysis in respect to individual soldiers and Marines is to determine the projectile that is most likely to rapidly physiologically incapacitate a dangerous opponent across multiple potential engagement scenarios and through common intervening intermediate barriers. The study of Wound Ballistics does NOT address such topics as training and marksmanship. It is was shocking to read that the MAJ’s Dean and LaFontaine feel one of the most important finding of the JSWB-IPT testing was to urge “proper shot placement”. ANY projectile is lethal with proper shot placement, even an anemic rimfire .22 LR. Shot placement has been a recognized component of incapacitation since mankind first began to kill for food and defense; pierce the charging woolly mammoth in the foot and it gets mad, hit it in the heart and it dies. This is a centuries old function of training and is NOT a revolutionary new finding of the current JSWB-IPT testing. To make such a comment is ludicrous in the context of terminal ballistic testing.
p32. “ Further, we currently cannot control yaw within a single type of ammunition, and all ammunition displays this tendency to some degree.”
Gee, there is a simple solution here--let’s just pick a combat load that exhibits minimal AOA and fleet yaw characteristics to eliminate this potential variable. Of course, as noted above, that immediately rules-out most 5.56 mm ammunition, especially FMJ loads like M193 and M855, as these show the WORST variations of AOA and fleet yaw. On the other hand 5.56 mm OTM and bonded bullets exhibit less yaw variability. Of course the caliber that demonstrated the LEAST yaw variability in the JSWB-IPT testing was 6.8 mm; too bad MAJ’s Dean and LaFontaine forgot to mention that in their article…
p32. “The technique of engaging CQB targets with controlled pairs--two aimed, rapid shots as described in Chapter 7 of FM 3-22.9--was shown to be significantly better than single aimed shots (see Figure 8).”
Please…this is NOT a wound ballistics revelation, but purely a training issue. It is a well known training technique taught for many decades in virtually every firearm training curriculum for law enforcement and military personnel. AGAIN, like shot placement, this is a training issue; it is clearly NOT a new finding of the JSWB-IPT testing and has nothing to do with terminal ballistic testing. To pretend otherwise is asinine.
p32. “Soldiers and leaders everywhere should take heart from the fact that despite all the myth and superstition surrounding their rifles and ammunition, they are still being provided the best performing weapons and ammunition available while the armaments community works to develop something even better.”
It is hard to take heart or remain silent when being force-fed such “limited truths”…
