7.62 NATO VS 7.62x39 VS 5.56 NATO 
check out the wound created by 5.56.
http://www.bobtuley.com/terminal.htm
check out the wound created by 5.56.http://www.bobtuley.com/terminal.htm
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Terminal Ballistics
- Thread starter doubleg
- Start date
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
rockstar.esq
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,475
Yeah, yeah, yeah. A 45-70'd make a mess too. Sometimes living things don't get dead like they're supposed to. Apparently they didn't read up on their physics! The ranting continues with math geeks/ ballistic jelly nerds trying to convince the sledgehammer/big 'n slow crowd that they should use poodle shooters for bison. There are examples a plenty illustrating how sometimes one side is right and other times where is just fails. Truly the debate isn't all that interesting. What impresses me is when someone acutally USES a stupidly small caliber effectively. At least then there is some semblence of martial discipline involved instead of hypothetical ramplings about the superiority of a milli mouse fart caliber for all things big and small.
DirksterG30
Member
I'd like to see the terminal ballistics of the German 7.62x51 FMJ round. The jacket is thinner than American 7.62 NATO for example, and the round often fragments like the M193 5.56 round. That would be the best of both worlds.
Don't Tread On Me
Member
Yes, there is truth to that, but you must put it in proper context.
The 155gr Amax (.308) is incredibly destructive. All things being equal, such as fragmentation and yaw, the theory of "the bigger, the better" certainly applies.
The real question then becomes, what is enough? If you've got enough to do the job, then you can scale back size for other benefits, such as weight saving or capacity. Remember, a .50bmg works best on humans, but you don't need that much power to do the job, unless that job is turning the target into paste.
The 155gr Amax (.308) is incredibly destructive. All things being equal, such as fragmentation and yaw, the theory of "the bigger, the better" certainly applies.
The real question then becomes, what is enough? If you've got enough to do the job, then you can scale back size for other benefits, such as weight saving or capacity. Remember, a .50bmg works best on humans, but you don't need that much power to do the job, unless that job is turning the target into paste.
This guy obviously read none of the words with more than 5 letters in them, when browsing through wherever he stole the pictures from.
Energy, velocity, etc., are all practically irrelevant compared to shot placement and bullet construction. Place your shots well, choose a bullet that is best suited to the platform you use, and everything else magically falls into place.
Energy, velocity, etc., are all practically irrelevant compared to shot placement and bullet construction. Place your shots well, choose a bullet that is best suited to the platform you use, and everything else magically falls into place.
Stolen Pictures, poor text.
The pictures are stolen and uncredited, however they are accurate pictures. The text is the author's, and it's accuracy is not to be trusted, as the above quote should make obvious. Hollywood to the contrary, bullets neither knock men down, nor throw them off their feet back some distance.
As others on this thread have mentioned, well designed bullets in 7.62 NATO / .308 Win perform *much* better than the pictured FMJ 7.62, as well as out-performing the US Military 5.56. Further, there is a maximum range / minimum velocity for the 5.56 (and most other bullets that disrupt in tissue) after which the bullet will fail to upset in such a dramatic fashion.
Nonetheless, the 5.56 works better than its detractors would care to admit, as the picture clearly illustrates.
-Morgan
30 Caliber rifle bullets of this type are known to knock men down, and throw them off their feet back some distance.
The pictures are stolen and uncredited, however they are accurate pictures. The text is the author's, and it's accuracy is not to be trusted, as the above quote should make obvious. Hollywood to the contrary, bullets neither knock men down, nor throw them off their feet back some distance.
As others on this thread have mentioned, well designed bullets in 7.62 NATO / .308 Win perform *much* better than the pictured FMJ 7.62, as well as out-performing the US Military 5.56. Further, there is a maximum range / minimum velocity for the 5.56 (and most other bullets that disrupt in tissue) after which the bullet will fail to upset in such a dramatic fashion.
Nonetheless, the 5.56 works better than its detractors would care to admit, as the picture clearly illustrates.
-Morgan
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.