Modern military is a wimp, at least according to the bullets used
 

The military is in decline. Just look at the bullets used in the mid 1800's vs the ones used in the mid 1900's and the newer ones are getting even wimpier.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1179810056.jpg


The biger one is the US GOVT 45-70

The second is a 0.308

The M16 is even smaller.

got a small one, huh?

Guess you have never seen anyone hit by a .223 or 7.62 round?

What is someone going to post next?

We're not becomign wimpy, we're just becoming a kinder, gentler nation.

ok...we're becoming wimpy...:confused:

Back in the Revoulution bore size was 69, during the Civil War it was 58. post Civil War it was 50/70 then 45/70 and then 30 caliber.

doesn't matter how big the old bugger is if you it doesn't have the reach, firingrate or accuracy of the little new buggers

and then there is still this :

http://www.fototime.com/7F95593CFB4773C/orig.jpg

nothing wimpy about that one

Spray and pray?
Jim

The 'logic' behind giving infantry smaller caliber ammunition and guns is based in the theory (fact) that it takes more resources to attend the wounded (transport, nurses, doctors, operating rooms, etc.) and has a higher psychological impact than not the dead produced by larger caliber ammo.

snowbunny a few minutes of your time looking at .223 damage photos on the net will explain a lot to you. the key word to look out for is 'tumble'.

remember the damage caused to the cop cars during the big shootout in 'Heat'? small entry holes and BIG exit holes? a friend who built his own legal fully auto AR and spent a lot of time with it told me that scene was the most accurate movie bit he had seen from a weapons standpoint.




edit===

i would like to qualify this as secondary information; i defer to any who actually know otherwise. on a board like this i wouldn't be surprised if a fellow Pelican actually worked on that movie and could offer some behind the scenes info.

F=MA

I've also seen on a show that they are working on bullets made of materials besides Pb including some sort of plastic to eliminate the Pb poisoning issues.

BTW, the assertation that smaller ammo makes the military wimpy is silly.

I seem to remember watching a documentary on the M16 where they said that the military poo pooed the rifle because of the "wimpy" ammo for several years.

Until one of the guys who developed the M16 had a BBQ where he invited a general and showed him what the gun could do to a couple of watermelons.

IIRC

Was at Walter Reed two weeks ago for a conference. Saw graphic slides of the wounded and dead from a surgeon who had just returned from Iraq. Modern weapons are plenty lethal. They are doing full body scans as "digital death certificates" on all the KIA's now so we have them for future studies.

Reminds me of the Kennedy "missile gap." Ours were smaller because ours were better and higher tech....

It doesn't really take much to kill a man if you hit one just right....:(

Found this with a quick Google search.....:eek:

http://www.bobtuley.com/terminal.htm

As I said before ... is about the 'wounding' not the 'killing'

The .223 should be banned

The General was Curtis LeMay of the US Air Force. Eugene Stoner, the designer of the AR-15 was getting stonewalled by the US Army, who had just adopted the M-14 (very good weapon BTW) and had no interest in the new weapon.

Stoner invited Gen. LeMay to a BBQ and let him fire a protoype full auto AR-15. The General was impressed and ordered some of the rifles for his SAC guards. The rest is history...

...30 Caliber rifle bullets of this type are known to knock men down, and throw them off their feet back some distance...

The article loses all credibility right then and there. No rifle bullet, of any caliber or energy, will throw them off their feet back some distance. Ever.

It's amazing the missperceptions that abound concerning terminal ballistics. Thank you Hollywood; thank you folks like Bob Tuley. In cases like this, the massive body of knowledge gained by soldiers' field experiences gets discounted by the thoughts of the inexperienced and unknowledgable. Experienced soldiers are adamant that the 5.56 does not kill as well as the 7.62.

My own experiences as a hunter bear this out. I've killed a fair number of a pretty good cross section of game and non-game animals available in North America, ranging in size from mere ounces to almost half a ton. .223 (5.56 NATO) class cartridges are out of the question for animals once they get to be about half the size of a small man. .30-'06 class cartridges do a noticably better job.

Back to the "throwing men off their feet". The only critters I have ever accomplished this with are ground squirrels and prairie dogs, hit with .223's or .220 Swifts. They weigh a couple of pounds at the most. Once you get up into the coyote size animals, there is nothing you can hit them with (that can be carried by a man) that will knock them off of their feet. Hell, I've shot coyotes with the .375 H&H mag using 300 grain bullets and have never managed to do this. It's a myth.

The discussion of wounding being preferable to killing makes sense at a strategic level, but it seems less desirable at a tactical level. Lots of wounded is a great bennie of a well-designed weapon, but not until after the battle. While it's still going on, I'd rather that the other guy not be able to shoot at me any more.

But then, I've never been in combat, so I'm really just talking out my arse.

Agree with much of the above but a .45 cal pistol bullet will swing a man around and a .50 cal bullet WILL pick someone up and move them.

As Jordi mentions above, the .223 bullet goes in and tumbles. The 7.62 round (M-14) is much better but todays military seems to want to use the "spray" method of fire on the battlefield as opposed to the old fashioned "firing one shot and hitting one target" of old days.

KE = 0.5 * M * V ^ 2

http://www.recguns.com/Sources/VIIE8.html

223 Rem is 1,303 ft-lb energy
45-70 is 2,351 ft-lb energy

Will be 'interesting' to find out what at 700 Nitro at over 8,900 ft/pounds or a 600 Nitro at 7,500 ft/pounds will do to a human body!!

Thanks for the correction Joe, I knew I was off on a couple of the facts.
SmileWavy

Let's talk about this over the beer we've promised to buy each other. I've got a lot of respect for your twisted views and you've probably dropped more large animals than I have (grand total of two) but I think my experience is not the same as yours. Most of the time when I've seen a deer or elk hit by a .30-06, they've been knocked off their feet. Like being hit by a car. Both of the ones I hit were knocked over. The deer shot was a frontal breast shot, which put him on his ass immediately, and nearly sent his front feet up over his head. I used a 180 grain bullet....either a Sierra or Nozzler. That's a muzzle velocity of around 2700 fps, creating about 2900 lb/ft of energy. That's about twice as much torque as a Porsche 917/30.

Still, I respect your views and suspect perhaps I am missing something. Perhaps the beer will clear it up.

BTW. I lived in Idaho Falls when we had the bunny overpopulation problem that was in the news nationwide. Bunny roundups and killing with bats. We would get a couple of boxes of shells and go sit and shoot bunnies. We used 110 gr "Kirksight) bullets with a semi-rounded nose. Solid brass. I don't recall the muzzle velocity, but those bullets went FAST. Fast enough that a square hit on a bunny made the bunny disappear into a cloud.

Strange talk for a liberal, I suppose.

Actually, they will merely poke a .700" diameter or .600" diameter hole through one. You could do the same thing with a sharp broom handle. A lighter, higher velocity, less stable or more frangible bullet will do far more damage. These heavey hitters are designed for deep, straight penetration. The bullets have very high sectional densities, very heavy jackets, and travel at moderate velocities. They are rather unspectacular when they hit something; they just go right on through without a lot of fanfare. I've shot a few critters with a .458 Winchester mag, pushing a 500 grain Hornady round nose at just shy of 2300 fps. There is far less tissue damage than a .30-'06 with a 150 grain bullet at 2900 fps.

It's velocity!
 

The lethality of a ballistic round has more to do with round placement and velocity at impact than total round mass when striking a target. This is the basis for the tungsten and depleted uranium sabots rounds that have been used with devastating effect by our tank and mobile armor divisions. Query for video clips of tank on tank sabots kills and marvel at the destruction. Most of the recent kills utilize a round that is 1/3 the size of the bore that actually fires the round… “M1A1 fires a APFSDS-T discarding sabot "anti-tank" shell, with the "sabots" peeling away shortly after the 120mm shell leaves the barrel. The smaller, 12 pound, 40mm penetrator thus travels at a higher speed (up to 5,000 feet per second), and can penetrate more armor when it hits an enemy tank. The high speed round hits its target with force equal to an eleven ton truck hitting something at a speed of 112 kilometers an hour.”

Yes, this discussion is about light arms but in the case of the 5.56/.223 round the higher velocity (fps), when compared to the heavy cal. 1900’s rounds, increases both the wound cavity and boat-tail tumbling effect of this wicked 55gr to 68 grain round. Couple this high velocity with the accuracy, cyclic rate of fire, and three round burst capabilities of the current “M-16/M4” and they make for a very effective weapon platform. 5.56 or 7.62 at 100m and you’re probably equally dead on a center mass shot. But for an extremity shot I’d rather catch a 7.62 then have a 5.56 tumble up and arm or leg. We’re not wimping out.

What’s the mathematical equation that proves this out?

And yes, the 7.62, a Lupa round or 50cal is a far superior long range tactical round to the 5.56.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1179868754.jpg

Indeed... please report to your closest Sierra club branch office and turn in all you granola bars... then go straight home and burn all your tie dye T shirts.

I can tell you what one will do to my shoulder, and do not even want to think about what the bullet would do to a person or animal.

Long time friend of mine shoots .416 Rigby Express from time to time.

Gents, that thing will kill anything on this earth (except Hitlary, and you would need a wooden stake for her) with just one well placed shot. I do not ever want to shoot it again... was sore for a week.

Trouble with the science again....

A bullet dissipates its energy -- when stopped in an animal -- in a fraction of a second; the high power for a fraction of a second actually represents minimal amounts of total energy (work).

Your observations when bullets hit animals was not energy from the bullets "knocking" the animals down. It was gravity acting on them when they fell down, combined with the energy in their muscles from (most likely) their attempts to run away.

Here is a 45-70 with a hot load for a modern gun
Trajectory (Basic) Output
Input Data
Manufacturer: Barnes Description: 0.458 dia. 350 gr. X Flat Base
Muzzle Velocity: 2400.0 ft/s
Sight Height: 2.00 in LOS Angle: 0.0 deg
Cant Angle: 0.0 deg
Wind Speed: 0.0 mph Target Speed: 0.0 mph
Temperature: 75.0 °F Pressure: 29.92 in Hg
Relative Humidity: 50.0 % Altitude: 0 ft
Std. Atmosphere at Altitude: No Corrected Pressure: Yes
Target Relative Drops: Yes Zero at Max. Point Blank Range: Yes
Calculated Parameters
Elevation: 9.13 MOA Azimuth: 0.00 MOA
Atmospheric Density: 0.07378 lbs/ft³ Speed of Sound: 1133.6 ft/s
Maximum PBR: 293 yds Maximum PBR Zero: 249 yds
Range at Max Height: 140 yds Energy at PBR: 2610.7 ft•lbs
Sectional Density: 0.238 lbs/in²
Calculated Table
Range Drop Drop Windage Windage Velocity Mach Energy Time Lead Lead
(yds) (in) (moa) (in) (moa) (ft/s) (none) (ft•lbs) (s) (in) (moa)
0 -2.0 *** 0.0 *** 2400.0 2.117 4475.7 0.000 0.0 ***
50 2.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 2297.0 2.026 4099.9 0.064 0.0 0.0
100 4.4 4.2 0.0 0.0 2196.5 1.938 3749.0 0.131 0.0 0.0
150 4.9 3.1 0.0 0.0 2098.5 1.851 3421.9 0.201 0.0 0.0
200 3.5 1.7 0.0 0.0 2003.1 1.767 3117.9 0.274 0.0 0.0
250 -0.1 -0.0 0.0 0.0 1910.4 1.685 2836.0 0.350 0.0 0.0
300 -6.1 -1.9 0.0 0.0 1820.6 1.606 2575.5 0.431 0.0 0.0
350 -14.7 -4.0 0.0 0.0 1733.8 1.529 2335.7 0.515 0.0 0.0
400 -26.1 -6.2 0.0 0.0 1650.3 1.456 2116.2 0.604 0.0 0.0
450 -40.8 -8.7 0.0 0.0 1570.3 1.385 1916.1 0.697 0.0 0.0
500 -59.0 -11.3 0.0 0.0 1494.3 1.318 1734.9 0.795 0.0 0.0
550 -81.1 -14.1 0.0 0.0 1422.4 1.255 1572.1 0.898 0.0 0.0
600 -107.5 -17.1 0.0 0.0 1355.2 1.195 1427.0 1.006 0.0 0.0
650 -138.6 -20.4 0.0 0.0 1293.0 1.141 1299.1 1.119 0.0 0.0
700 -175.0 -23.9 0.0 0.0 1236.3 1.091 1187.6 1.238 0.0 0.0
750 -217.0 -27.6 0.0 0.0 1185.5 1.046 1092.0 1.362 0.0 0.0
800 -265.2 -31.7 0.0 0.0 1140.7 1.006 1011.1 1.491 0.0 0.0
850 -320.1 -36.0 0.0 0.0 1101.8 0.972 943.2 1.625 0.0 0.0
900 -382.1 -40.5 0.0 0.0 1067.8 0.942 886.0 1.763 0.0 0.0
950 -451.8 -45.4 0.0 0.0 1038.1 0.916 837.3 1.906 0.0 0.0
1000 -529.5 -50.6 0.0 0.0 1011.6 0.892 795.1 2.053 0.0 0.0

THe permanent wound channel would be close to 3/4 of an inch. The temp channel ??? but big very big.

I would not want to be struck by any round, even a 22 short, but the good old 45-70 would still drop an elephant at 800 yards.

http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/ballistics/traj_basic/traj_basic.html

"The temp channel ??? but big very big."

and also meaningless...
most tissue being elastic and all... except the (liver is it?)

also... how come i dont get thrown back when i fire my muzzle loader if for every action there is a reaction? why am i not being thrown to the ground? didnt mythbusters even do a show in this because its such a misconception?

i take the 45 auto out and shoot a 60lb steel target and it just barely wiggles when the full force of the bullet is transmitted to the front of it... all XXXXft\lbs

Did anyone consider the fact that a big slow bullet is easier to stop with body armor then a smaller faster bullet? so if its all about creating the biggest >>>>permanent<<<< wound channel .... if the bullet never gets in.. then that would be a problem...

Yup; we still need to get together and do that one day. Beer clears a lot of things right up...

Anyway, I have observed the same reaction in a few deer I have shot. It really is pretty impressive; they appear for all the world to have been all but bowled over, ass over teakettle, by the bullet's impact. I even had one jump straight up in the air one time, like five or six feet straight up. Of course, he should have been knocked away from me, if it really was the impact. Hmm...

I have always ascribed this reaction to nervous shock. All nerves fire upon the bullet's impact; kind of like a really big hammer to the knee at the doctor's office. It's a reflexive reaction. It sure can make it look like they got "knocked over", but the vast majority do not react in this way.

Much has been written about the effects of nervous shock imparted by the impact of a very high velocity rifle bullet. It can, and will spectacularly kill some animals. Deer tend to be wound a little tight. They are very much on the "nervous" end of the spectrum in the animal world. I guess I would be too, but I digress. Moose, for example, are on the other end of that spectrum, sporting notoriously phlegmatic nervous systems. It takes one a long time to figure out they are dead. You won't see one react to nervous shock. Most deer won't either, so we rely upon the permanent wound channel and massive blood loss to kill.

Men are even more susceptable to nervous shock than deer. We are quite easy to kill compared to just about any game animal. This atribute has been used to help justify the current "sub-caliber" infantry rounds. What does not seem to be accounted for, however, is the affect of adrenaline on a man's ability to absorb, and shrug off, any kind of nervous shock. Now we are back to the permanent wound channel. This has been demonstrated in battle ad nauseum, from the failed introduction of the .38 Special during the Morro insurection to the tragic deaths of the FBI agents in Florida. There is a difference between killing and stopping; a sub-caliber round may very well eventually kill, but if that happens even a minute after impact, it can be a real problem. We want to see opponents stopped; right here; right now. Big calibers do that better.

A 350 gr bullet traveling over 2000 fps isn't slow, its fast, damn fast at almost twice the speed of sound. Its also big, very big and is not likely to be stopped by anything. I wonder if they even test body armor against such rounds? It isn't even close to one of those muzzle loading rounds at over 4 times the energy.

I have let others shoot my 45-70. What I observe is that the gun twists their body half way around and backwards about 6", with every shot. Thats when they are braced against it.

Correct.

When I did my army service, we had two main types of weapons. 7.62mm were bulky and hard to carry. They also had lower velocity but higher energy. 5.56mm were easier to carry and were almost "high velocity".

I had a privilege to be teached by a guy who was also a teacher at military academy and he said:

1. 5.56mm is more accurate, easier to handle and easier to carry.
2. Main objective is not to kill but to wound the enemy, thus tying more resources.
3. A bit more powder would make 5.56 into "high velocity" weapon. A high velocity bullet will project a shock-wave trough soft tissue which is actually worse than being hit by bigger but slower projectile. This shock-wave will destroy tissue around entry point w/o mechanical contact. You get a conically shaped wound and if projectile starts tumbling (which it often does) the wounds are actually worse than 7.62mm stuff.

So yes, 5.56 isn't so bad when it comes to infantry weapons.

We use 12.9 Barret for wrecking stuff. 5.56 is for soft-target combat and I understand why. You have to pick the right tool for the job.

In the Military they had us shooting heavily sedated pigs to show the impact result of high velocity weapons like the AK-5. The light, unstable bullets start to tumble in the body at impact. The result is just awful. A tiny little entrance whole and an enormous crater where it exited along with most of the internal organs of the poor animal. Truly heinous.

this is sort of not on point, but in duck hunting and, to a much smaller extent dove hunting, there are four factors in the ammo choice: 1-size of pellet 2-speed of pellet 3- # of pellets 4- density (material choice) of pellet. If you gather a dozen duck hunters you will find more than a few different combinations of these choices. interesting stuff as the goal is to kill the bird stone dead and absolutely minimize cripples. as it happens i currently prefer light, fast loads. my hunting partner is very content with his heavier, slower loads.

there is of course no 'tumbling' effect with round pellets but some prefer softer tungsten etc. based pellets which are said to deform slightly on impact and create a bigger mess internally. the most spectacular (i.e. dead in the air and dropping like a stone) kills i have witnessed tended to be shots in which pellets went clean through (hitting vitals is the name of the game). there is a theory that while the duck certainly didn't bleed out instantly it was the 'shock' of the impact (minimum 3 pellets COM in my experience) that killed the bird. not sure how this works myself but if it means absolute minimal suffering i'll take it! as i said, this doesn't quite apply to humans and boattail rounds but it is interesting.

Lots of the more lethal ammo like large calibre, hollowpoints, etc are against the law...that is why the military does not use them.

What about the snipers?

"...expanding point ammunition is legally permissible in counterterrorist operations not involving the engagement of the armed forces of another State."

I recall seeing ballistics tests which show that the .223 not only tumbles, it breaks apart into (usually) two pieces which diverge. Who needs a hollowpoint when you already have a tumbling, fragmenting bullet?