"Would you use a 22 caliber FMJ on whitetail? Then why people?"

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

natedog

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,634
Location
Bakersfield, California
A common argument against the 5.56mm is the question "Would you use a 22 FMJ bullet out of a 14" barrel against whitetail? Then why would you use the same round against whitetail sized people?"

Anyone from the 5.56mm camp have a rebuttle to this?
 
Someone over on ARFCOM posted pictures of some hogs he harvested with M193 from his AR15. A 14" barrel just reduces the effective range a little bit.

-z
 
Nate, go grab a .22LR cartridge and set it on your desk. Then grab a 5.56 round and set it next to the first one. This is not an "apples to apples" comparison.

Having said that, I kinda agree with your basic premise, seems to me like the ideal military cartridge should be a little bigger than 5.56, but what do I know?

And for what it's worth, which isn't much, I'd never buy a 14.5" barrel in a 5.56, since the whole point of the round is velocity, and I'd rather have the extra inch or two (or more) of barrel than the "tactical" muzzle brake, which makes the rifle the same length anyway.
 
A common argument against the 5.56mm is the question "Would you use a 22 FMJ bullet out of a 14" barrel against whitetail? Then why would you use the same round against whitetail sized people?"
Click to expand...

Ummm, cause i aint planning to eat the person, and thus it doesnt matter he/she has 6 holes in them, nor do i worry about how much they will suffer before they die.

If i am in a position where i have to shoot someone with a rifle then it doesnt really matter to me if they are on the ground moaning and screaming afterwards, thats life and he wouldnt be there if he wasnt trying to kill me in the first place.

Doing that to an animal that you are hunting for food/sport is just wrong.

Besides the animal isnt shooting back and i can take my time to line up a nice shot without too much hurry. Having 30 rounds readily on tap would be handy in a firefight but of severely limited use in hunting. I'm willing to trade capacity and weight for terminal performance.
 
Very true, Dan. I don't align myslef with that argument at all- I was just looking for rebuttes (sp?). My favorite (and only :() EBR is a Mini-14.
 
Well, I don't consider myself "one of the 5.56 crowd", but
Ummm, cause i aint planning to eat the person
Click to expand...
was what I was going to say. Also, I figure I want to be able to carry as many rounds as I can, to be able to put holes in as many of the enemy as possible, with as little weight/bulk penalty
as possible. Basically, anything more powerful than a .22 Magnum is powerful enough.

John
 
One other point that gets little attention:

You can't directly compare the terminal effects of ammo on animals to the effects of same ammo on people. We are built different.

Quadrapeds and bipeds have very different skeletal and muscular layouts. Most game animals are also in a lot better shape physically than most of your bottom feeder humans.
 
He is the ultimate answer regarding little vs. big calibers.

Little caliber bullets kill
Big caliber bullets kill

Little caliber bullets sometimes fail to kill
Big caliber bullets sometimes fail to kill

Little caliber bullets fail more often to kill than big caliber bullets.

It is all about odds. Pick the one with the best odds if you can handle shooting the larger round and don't mind the extra weight (or fewer rounds) carried.

This is the entire arguement. Thread finished.
 
Military rounds are intended to inflict casualties, not deaths necessarily. At 200 yards this is a good strategy IMO. At 10 feet however, I'm not real crazy about it.
 
I've never understood why our military continues to field guns with 14" barrels, when it has been common knowledge for years, that the effective distance of the weapon is greatly compromised, in such a short barrel.

A .223 round in the chest, from a 16" or longer barrel, at distances under 150 yards will take the fight out of anybody.

But......
1. It's hard to make chest shots, especially when you're being shot at, running, etc.
2. You can't always pick the distance that you may need to fight at.
3. And, I think our troops would have been better served by sticking with 55gr bullets, but what do I know. :rolleyes:

Any weapon that you can carry is a compromise.
 
when it has been common knowledge for years, that the effective distance of the weapon is greatly compromised, in such a short barrel.
Click to expand...

Better tell that to the guys developing the XM8. Standard infantry barrel length is 12.5", carbine length is 9.5" (sort of like having one of those 5.56 pistols) :neener:
 
Why?

As MaterDei observed...and spot on I might add...military
smallarms are designed to create casualties, and a wounded soldier is
more of a liability than a dead one. It takes people to tend to his wounds and keep him alive....A kickin', pukin' bloody comrade screamin' for his mother has a demoralizing effect on the other troops...whether they'll admit to it or not. A wounded soldier also uses up resources until he either
dies or recovers, as the case may be. Whenever an enemy combatant
is out of the fight due to his wound, he is judged "killed"...no matter if
he hits the ground stone dead or recovers and lives to see his grandchildren go to college.

When you take to the field in pursuit of a noble animal that isn't a threat,
and hasn't done anything to be killed for, you owe that animal as quick and
as painless a death as you can manage...or at least the best chances of the same. You don't owe that to an antagonist who has shown that he
is perfectly willing and able to do the same to you, given the chance.

Sounds cold, but that's the long and the short of it.

Cheers!

Tuner
 
I don't really buy the "we only want to wound them" thought.

Everything else is made to kill. Tanks, howitzers, bombs etc. Why would bullets not? The main goal of the bullet is to kill. The reason that we are going to shorter barrels is they are more maneuverable in todays battlefield enviroment, and most of the engagements with ground forces is closer than 150 meters. We have bradleys and mortars and air support to handle further threats. Yes you occasionally have ground engagements further than that and a 5.56 will work fhere too, maybe not as well, but that is why we have something called "danger close fire for effect". I was in the Army when they fielded the M4. Only problem I saw was that the qualification was the same as the M16. I don't care what the accuracy potential is with the 14.5 inch barrel, with the reduced sighting radius it is more of a challenge to hit far targets with open sights. I shot expert with it, barely, but I bet MANY ppl who would shoot expert with a 20" didn't with the M4. Back on topic here. I have heard the wound theory for years but have never seen it in any military manual. If it is there then I would like to see it. Most of the firefights that we are seeing today are small units, if you want to call them that of bad guys. Doing an ambush or something. A wounded guy is not gonna take two guys dragging him off when there are only 10 attacking you. They will fight and die or get captured. And wounded guys can sometimes still shoot back. We shoot to kill and stop the threat.
 
Under 100 yards I would feel comfortable using a 223 FMJ on deer with a carbine length barrel.
Every deer I've shot with 308, 6.5x55 and 10mm under 100 yards has had an exit wound.
Very unscientifically thinking, if the bullet continues through the deer then it is more energy than is necessary to put down the animal.
The best place for the projectile to dump its energy is in the vitals of the animal.
A 223 will make a smaller hole than the any of the above, but shot to the heart or lungs with a centerfire rifle is generally not a survivable injury without prompt medical attention.
Now taking a long shot on a deer with a carbine is another story, but that is not the purpose of the carbine.
 
Shoot to Kill

Ed said:

I don't really buy the "we only want to wound them" thought.
__________________________

Howdy Ed,

Nobody said that...and as for the attack not faltering when one member is wounded, that may be partly true if the action is close, fast, and furious...but I've seen it happen when one member of a 5-man fire team
goes down. Somebody will stop...even if just for a few seconds to see if
he can help or render aid or call for a Corpsman and wait with him until the Corpsman gets there.

I've seen Marines drop their rifles to go after a wounded comrade at great risk...and I've seen many a Navy Corpsman defy a direct order from an officer to stay put, and go to a wounded Marine. Seen a few get killed in the attempt, followed shortly by another one who defies the same order from the same officer.

Again...a wounded soldier is a greater liablity than a dead one. Resources
are expended on him...from blood plasma to bandages to morphine to
antibiotics. Wars aren't always won or lost in the heat of glorious
battle...Sometimes attrition is what does in the enemy. That's what ultimately defeated the Germans in Russia. The inability to support
the troops in the field with ammo, provisions, and replacement troops
has as much bearing on the final outcome as a napalm attack or artillery barrage....it just takes longer.

On the question of bombs and artillery, et al...the purpose of such
ordnance is to break things and deny the enemy the use of those things.
Human casualties are incidental. Mortars split the difference, and are designed to do both, as well as act as a demoralizing force, and to break up enemy concentrations. Until you've heard a mortar cough in the treeline and held your breath for about 20 seconds to find out where it'll fall...you can't really understand the full psycholgical impact that it has. With artillery, by the time the sound reaches you, the round has already hit...i.e. Ya never hear the one that gets ya....But mortars? You pretty well know one's on the way. What you don't know is what'll get hit.

Now, if you want to examine the weapon system that is designed to kill,
look no further than the sniper team.

Cheers!

Tuner
 
These are the first weights & velocities I pulled off the web, so I'll use them as demonstration.

5.56 NATO: 62 grains in weight & 3100 fps
.22LR: 40 grains & 1100 fps

Kinetic energy = mass * (velocity ^2)

I know the units aren't right for this calculation, but since they're the same in both calculations, you can see the relationship:

5.56: KE = 62 * (3100^2) = 595,820,000 energy units
.22LR: KE = 40 * (1100^2) = 48,400,000 energy units

So the 5.56 delivers more than 12 times the energy of the .22LR, assuming 100% energy transfer.

That's the difference.

~W
 
Quote:
-------------------------------------------
military smallarms are designed to create casualties, and a wounded soldier is more of a liability than a dead one.
-------------------------------------------

I have never found the Required Operational Capability (ROC) that says that, nor have I found ANY documentation in the procurement chain that shows that.
 
I've never understood why our military continues to field guns with 14" barrels, when it has been common knowledge for years, that the effective distance of the weapon is greatly compromised, in such a short barrel.
Click to expand...

Because clearing rooms with a barrel greater than 16 inches or so really sucks.
 
ROC

T'was said:

I have never found the Required Operational Capability (ROC) that says that, nor have I found ANY documentation in the procurement chain that shows that.
_____________________

Uh huh...and you can find things that it does say that you don't do
as well as things that it doesn't say that you DO...do. Just like
the marksmanship manual directs us to squeeze of a round without
disturbing sight alignment, but says nothing about how to do that when
mortar rounds are knockin' the tops of the trees off around your head.


Can't speak for anybody else here...but I can tell ya that a dead, silent
soldier doesn't break your resolve like one who's screamin' to the top of
his lungs...and even a little demoralization has some effect on the rest of the squad.

Again...a wounded soldier that is incapable of carrying out his mission
is "killed" as surely as one who has been cut in half. The manuals don't
discern between killed and neutralized. Killed is killed.

Now then...back on topic!

Tuner
 
and a wounded soldier is more of a liability than a dead one. It takes people to tend to his wounds and keep him alive....A kickin', pukin' bloody comrade screamin' for his mother has a demoralizing effect on the other troops...whether they'll admit to it or not. A wounded soldier also uses up resources until he either dies or recovers, as the case may be.
Click to expand...

That's all fine and dandy, but that presumes that the opposing military force 1. cares about wounded comrades or 2. doesn't have an entire branch devoted to medical care.
 
Quote:
---------------------------------------
Uh huh...and you can find things that it does say that you don't do
as well as things that it doesn't say that you DO...do.
---------------------------------------

The Required Operational Capability (ROC) statement is the official document that states the intent of the Army in developing or procuring new equimpent, ammo, and supplies.

Ammunition, being a manufactured entity, has to have its capabilities designed in. You can't just want a capability, and never document it -- and hope it somehow happens.
 
This is one of the most retarded arguments the "must be >5.56" crowd puts forth, for a multitude of reasons. Among them:

1. What DMK said - Anatomy, physical ability, etc., are just not comparable. A lot of deer research gets done by colleagues here at the U. Deer are usually sedated before handled, but I can assure you that if they're not, you don't wanna put your money on the man in a deer vs. man wrestling contest. Or even the 2nd guy when he jumps in, and maybe not even the 3rd.

2. What c_yeager and others said. The certainty of a quick kill needs to be greater when hunting. Beyond humane considerations, the goal is to not have to chase the deer all over God's green earth after he's been shot. If the b/g gets up and runs away, you still win.

3. Psych effect of being shot often helps w/humans. In animals, being shot just makes them run, etc. Usally on pumped-up levels of stress hormones. (Tho, drugs etc. can do the same to humans, no matter what they're shot with.)

4. Although "designed to wound" is a fallacy, a wounded enemy combatant MAY help your cause.

5. 1 man vs. 1 deer leaves a lot more in the way of options re the logistics of having to tote around gun(s) and ammo. When I used to hunt, I'd take a belt carrier that held, I think, 8 rds. I coulda carried 8 rds of pretty much any cartridge I wanted, and usually had a .30-06 or similar. If I had to engage/repel a whole herd of deer, rather than seek out just one, I'd prob have opted for something else.

6. Probable engagement distances significantly figured into the selection/development of the .223 which no doubt does best at something less than 250-300 m, depending on bbl length, ammo choice, etc. Conversely, a lot of hunters choose to haul their magnums into the woods b/c they greatly overestimate a) the distance at which they might be able to shoot a deer, and b) most ESPECIALLY the distance at which they think their skills will actually let them hit a deer.

During the time at which deer populations in the U.S. were at their lowest, and deer least likely to be encountered up close, folks were predominantly using lower powered, short-range cartridges. Today, we're literally overrun by deer in many eastern states, and large open areas are increasingly scarce, but the guns keep getting more and more "powerful".
 
I'm betting on optimal size/weight for carrying, use, etc. If our soldiers could all easily carry a lightweight, select fire, .50 BMG recoilless rifle with a few hundred rounds of ammunition on top of all their other gear, I'd bet the choice would be simple.

Soldiers need to consider weight, amount of ammunition, controllability, and flexibility in weapons. 14" barrels? I've heard it's easier to shoot out the window of a moving Humvee with one. I would bet its more useful in many urban environments where ranges are reduced. You spend a couple hours patrollingn where that type of weapon is optimal, then, of course, 30 seconds outside of town, you've got a few hundred yards of flat desert where that 14" barrel isn't so useful any more. So where do you optimize your weapon for? The patrol, or the trip home. Tough call, especially since lives depend on it.

As for caliber choice, with all this optimization, soldiers use smaller calibers. Deer hunters don't have to lug 120 rounds (or however many is standard on a mission) with a horde of other equipment. They can choose a heavier rifle. Basically, they can optimize for the task at hand: a single targetting of a deer.

Let's say you want to go hunting, but a number of the Violent Party for the Preservation of Bambi (VPPB) will be out there taking pot-shots at you the whole time. Would you still carry the same rifle and amount of ammunition?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top