quote:

Originally posted by miles58:

quote:

The term hydro applies here since one is shooting a a jug of water

And it applies to a human or a deer or pretty well any animal. The reason for that is they are all made up of roughly 2/3rds water

I believe two things about hydrostatic shock:

First, it is probably the main motive force in tissue damage that leads to death. I believe this because in the more than half century I have spent killing animals one constant in examining the wounds of rifle killed animals has been the amount of damage to the animal is always greater than the maximum diameter of the bullets. That bloodshot meat is from ruptured blood vessels. I have seen enough deer hearts that similarly ruptured without the bullet directly touching them to know that is occurring. The great vessels of the chest and abdomen, can and do similarly rupture. Their rupture can result in as rapid a death as a bullet through the heart for all intents and purposes.

Second, The effects of the hydrostatic shock are limited to the area very proximal to the wound.

Make no mistake about it, the damage within say four inches of the bullet path when bone/bullet fragments are not involved is the result of hydrostatic shock. It will rupture all manner of tissue from individual blood cells to hearts. Lungs are particularly vulnerable to hydrostatic shock because they are extremely delicate tissue that has a huge amount of blood in it and it is so well perfused. Dessicated lung is like that airy sugar candy

Beyond that four inch area there is little effect that contributes to the immediate death of the animal. Depending on the variables involved, the bullet, it's velocity, whether it hit bone on it's path, the animal etc, the four inch distance may be more or less. But, we all rely on hydrostatic shock to assist in the killing. Were we not thus assisted, we'd see a whole lot more animals run off mortally wounded. Ball ammo is not designed to produce the effect to anywhere near the degree of hunting ammo. It is designed to penetrate instead of transfer (dump) it's energy to the target

If the explosion of a water filled jug is hydrostatic shock, then the same bullet hitting a heterogeneous medium made up of some varying percentage of water will produce hydrostatic shock with the resultant effects being moderated by the makeup of the medium and the percentage of water. That's all the physics of this problem will allow for.

I want my guns to shoot as accurately as I can make them shoot to give me the most forgiveness for my mistakes. I want my bullets to deliver far more energy to my target than the minimum necessary to make a mortal hole for the same reason. I would have trouble living with myself if half my best was acceptable as good enough. I want to measure my skill well and often that I might know well my limits or to raise my sights as the case may be.

I agree, very good post.

Redhawk1,perhaps you did not read Alf's response, so I copied it and pasted it below. Alf is an expert in the field of wound ballistics. He has undeniable credentials.
Do you? or would you like to post another long winded post to illistrate your total lack of knowledge in the area of disscusion...

Notice that no where is the term hydrostatic shock used to describe the event of a bullet passing through muscle tissue
------------------------------------------------


ALF
one of us
Posted Mar 1, 2:55 PM Hide Post
George Roof:

I was asked by some others to enter into this discussion particularly with regards to the mythical existance of the concept of "Hydrostatic Shock" as it pertains to the mechanics of wounding and causation of the process of death in animals.

In order to simplify this we need to look at the very basis of the process of wounding which in reality whether it be an arrow, a knifewound a blunt blow or a bullet comes down to two concepts.

The first is direct crush of tissue by the leading surface of the bullet and the second is the effect of radial displacement and transport of tissue away and in front off the passing bullet.

Because tissue is deemed a solid, allbeit a soft solid, with solid matter properties and mechanics we can get into things like elasticity, vicoscity, density, cohesion etc to see what effect the radial displacement has on each of, or alternately what effect the quality has has on the passing bullet.

So thus far no talk of " hydrostatic shock" ! : if we look at the term it infers a shock wave produced in a fluid medium , or that is what one would assume, it also assumes a lot of other things such as the effects of compressability or in the case of a fluid the lack thereoff and again the effects of a projectile passing at high speed through a viscous or non viscous non compressable fluid. Fundmantally very different to a bullet's passsage through a soft solid in terms of mechanics.

Shock waves are produced in tissue, in front of the bullet, they usually will travel at velocities close to or in excess of the speed of sound in the tissue. A feature of these waves are that they do not transport tissue and their ability to cause damage has to do with the slope in front of the pressure wave. As such they do no harm ! in theory at least there is indication that they may cause changes in nerve tissue conduction if the wave is propagated close to the nerve in question.
Posts: 4962 | Registered: 16 August 2000

Hang on, man is made up primarily of water, but man is not a vessel full of water, so I don't see how one is related to another with regards to the dynamics of being hit with a bullet. JMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
Hang on, man is made up primarily of water, but man is not a vessel full of water, so I don't see how one is related to another with regards to the dynamics of being hit with a bullet. JMHO.

Whitworth, even though man is not a vessel of water, a bullet causes the same effect but with less dynamics becasue of the tissue. It is on a smaller scale.

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
Hang on, man is made up primarily of water, but man is not a vessel full of water, so I don't see how one is related to another with regards to the dynamics of being hit with a bullet. JMHO.

Whitworth, even though man is not a vessel of water, a bullet causes the same effect but with less dynamics becasue of the tissue. It is on a smaller scale.

Ignorant simply means that one has not been exposed to the informaton, yet when exposed to said info is capable of learning
Stupid on the other hand is the incapability to learn....

quote:

Hang on, man is made up primarily of water, but man is not a vessel full of water, so I don't see how one is related to another with regards to the dynamics of being hit with a bullet. JMHO.

At least this part is easy and should make good sense to everyone.

In a very real sense he is. Your skin is the walls of the container and it's there to keep the good stuff (like water) in and the bad stuff out. More specifically, animals are made up of many (billions and billions) of compartments. Some are single cells, some are organs, some are "skins" that surround organs, some are pipes (blood vessels) and some are bones. Like another contributor to the discussion stated, the energy released so suddenly is substantially in the form of heat, This energy release will literally vaporize a substantial amount of water. In the case of an animal, the vaporized water condenses again as the heat is absorbed by the surrounding tissues. The majority of such vaporization in an animal will only occur in the area closest to the bullet as it moves through. The majority of the "damage" occurs when the water (fluid) filled tissues have to move and because the water will not compress, they rupture the compartmentalizations.

quote:

Originally posted by miles58:

quote:

Hang on, man is made up primarily of water, but man is not a vessel full of water, so I don't see how one is related to another with regards to the dynamics of being hit with a bullet. JMHO.

At least this part is easy and should make good sense to everyone.

In a very real sense he is. Your skin is the walls of the container and it's there to keep the good stuff (like water) in and the bad stuff out. More specifically, animals are made up of many (billions and billions) of compartments. Some are single cells, some are organs, some are "skins" that surround organs, some are pipes (blood vessels) and some are bones. Like another contributor to the discussion stated, the energy released so suddenly is substantially in the form of heat, This energy release will literally vaporize a substantial amount of water. In the case of an animal, the vaporized water condenses again as the heat is absorbed by the surrounding tissues. The majority of such vaporization in an animal will only occur in the area closest to the bullet as it moves through. The majority of the "damage" occurs when the water (fluid) filled tissues have to move and because the water will not compress, they rupture the compartmentalizations.

Have you been to Delaware .....

I still ain't found out what a MU is. I was called one by dsiteman, who is an out of work hall monitor, but I don't know what it is.

Miles, it's probably because you or I or Redhawk hasn't been ordained by this little coffee klatch as being "expert" enough to have common sense. From a biological and pathological approach to this issue, it's well known that the cause of death of many humans is called "blunt force trauma". In effect, blunt force trauma is hydrostatic shock. We've all heard about policemen being killed after having been shot in the chest with a shotgun at close range while wearing a "bulletproof" vest. The shot column never penetrated the vest, so no blood vessels or major nerve centers were severed during the shooting. Anyone who's ever suffered a concussion is well aware of the "coup/recoup" of what happens to the brain. These "experts" will tell you that the concussion disrupted the nerve center (DUH!) but they won't admit that it was set in motion by hydrostatic shock of the brain being bounced off one wall and rebounding against the opposite wall of the skull. As you describe about venison being lost to the shot, if the bullet (like a .243 often does) splatters itself all over the shoulder blade of a deer, the massive bruising and ruined meat around the site cannot possibly be explained so cavalierly as "severed blood vessels or interruption of nerve centers". Anyone who'd taken a "Texas heart shot" know how deadly that one can be with the right rifle and load. The "vessels" of the intestines rapid expansion are the only explanation for ruptured skin on some of these animals. Though these mental minions will argue that the shot continues up through the liver and into possibly other vital organs, it completely overlooks the incapacitation of the animal due to shock. They've basically decided that there is no such thing as "hydrostatic shock" and they've dug up their "experts" to validate their opinions. We poor mortals stand no chance as they continue to regroup and close their little brotherhood around them. They don't want to be provoked into thought, they only want us to think like they do.

So, I'm a mental minion because I don't agree with you? I haven't stooped to insults.

/

.....But 2 MOA can hit them, sacks of water or not! I like less than 1 MOA as a mininmum accuracy standard myself--but silly me--that was the original question.

quote:

Originally posted by Fish30114:
.....But 2 MOA can hit them, sacks of water or not! I like less than 1 MOA as a mininmum accuracy standard myself--but silly me--that was the original question.

LOL!! Yes, it did go off on a bit of a tangent!

Whitworth, I apologize to you. Several of you HAVE added your opinions and observations without resorting to the name calling and insults. I was absolutely wrong in cloistering you and the others in that group and I appreciate your bebates. Alf also has some very valid points and it was not he, who hoisted his own flag in giving his opinions. I appreciate the input of all those who simply expressed their opinions on THIS issue. Obviously this is going to be one of those we'll just have to agree to disagree about.

The point Alf is making with the hole in the deer being permanent is wonderful. It can illustrate the problem well.

In both cases, deer and pool as the bullet moves through, the medium reacts very similarly. Instantly there is the absence of matter behind the bullet. Both mediums follow a fluid model during the process. Perhaps the simplest demonstration of the fluid dynamics that some of have seen is the fan shaped spray of blood and small particles of animal on the snow behind an animal shot through, and the less frequent less dramatic spray on the entry side. Assuming both opaque water and a standing deer you have a clear (absent of material) path to the bullet in each case for some distance

His example of the differing behavior of the bullet placed on the surface of the water and the surface of the deer is likewise useful to understanding the dynamics. Place the bullet on a filled water balloon and it's the same as the deer. Better yet, place the bullet on a balloon filled with dozens (hundreds) of small water balloons. Still the same as the deer. Fire the bullet through the big balloon filled with water and then small balloons filled with water, and the result will fall between the extremes. Depending on the variables of size of the balloons, velocity of the bullet etc, the results will fall closer to the static model or the dynamic (hydraulic) model.

Fire a BB gun at low velocity through the balloon filled with small balloons filled with water and you will rupture all that are penetrated and maybe some of the most proximal small balloons. Raise the velocity to say 1000 FPS for the BB and you will rupture more. Substitute a 243 with a 55 grain bullet at 4000 FPS and you would rupture a great many more. You can scale the model up or down. You can scale the projectile up or down. The model is sound and will illustrate the processes well. Shoot a unit of blood in it's "bag" and you will rupture cells if you use the 243. That scales the model to the microscopic level.

I do not have a side in the "argument". To postulate there is no hydraulic shock is as ridiculous as dead Ox Peckers. They way things work is the way they work, I am just trying to make it easier to see the processes involved.

The problem is the water balloons do not accurately mimic the actual tissues of a human or deer.

That's why they use ballistic gelatin to test bullet penetration and expansion. It too is mostly water -- usually as much as 90% -- but it doesn't exhibit the same hydrostatic properties as water in a pure liquid form.

I'm only speculating here, but if we covered a block of gelatin the size of a 1-gal jug with a membrane of the same density and elasticity of skin or other bodily membranes such as those covering organs, arteries, etc. and fired a bullet into it, the result would be much different than firing that same bullet into a 1-gal. jug or balloon filled with water.

That said, even the gelatin isn't a true measure of tissue because it is too homogenous compared to the make-up of a human's or deer's torso. There are too many gaps of empty space and stretchable tissues in the latter. So the general pressures in real torsos do not have the same continuous paths to reach very far from the intitial bullet path. -TONY

Tony, I understand the difference in the analogies, but I don't understand the differences being guarded with the comparisons. Use the same medium but different velocities. The .22 through the torso and the .223. (And Miles, the oxpecker story isn't mine. I've never shot a Cape buffalo. So if it is, as you say, "ridiculous", it's not my story.)

Tony, you may or may not recall the furor created when the US military went from the .30 caliber to the .223. The battle field carnage was so great that questions were brought into play about it complying with the Geneva Convention. There were even stories that this damage and carnage was being caused by the bullet "tumbling". You may have seen some of these casualties as I have. If so, you know arms, legs, and even heads were detached from torso's with some shots. SOMETHING did this damage. In my mind, it certainly wasn't cavitation of the bullet and certainly not the theories expounded here about blood vessels and nerve centers. So instead of water balloons being compared to deer, please give me your feelings about the .22 and the .223 penetrations of the human body. This way we aren't speaking apples and oranges, just apples.

quote:

Originally posted by Fish30114:
.....But 2 MOA can hit them, sacks of water or not! I like less than 1 MOA as a mininmum accuracy standard myself--but silly me--that was the original question.

I think that as the question...lol

quote:

If so, you know arms, legs, and even heads were detached from torso's with some shots. SOMETHING did this damage. In my mind, it certainly wasn't cavitation of the bullet and certainly not the theories expounded here about blood vessels and nerve centers.

Geez, with damage such as that, it seems the .223 would make an ideal and quite lethal big-game cartridge, huh?

Anyway, here's something that might provide some light, -TONY

Reprinted from American Thinker- November 27, 2007


August 24, 2004
The Last 'Big Lie' of Vietnam Kills U. S. Soldiers in Iraq
By Maj. Anthony F. Milavic, USMC (Ret.)

At a Vietnam Special Forces base during 1964, I watched a U. S. soldier fire 15 rounds of .223 caliber ammunition into a tethered goat from an AR—15 rifle; moments after the last round hit, the goat fell over. Looking at the dead goat, I saw many little bullet entry—holes on one side; and when we turned him over, I saw many little bullet exit—holes on the other side. Over time, those observations were confirmed and reconfirmed, revealing that the stories we were told on the lethality of the .223 caliber cartridge were fabrications. Those false reports drove the adoption of the .223 caliber cartridge as the 5.56mm NATO cartridge and, ever since, Americans have been sent to war with a cartridge deficient in combat lethality; a deficiency that has recently caused the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

What is efficient combat lethality? The book Black Hawk Down quotes SFC Paul Howe's description of SFC Randy Shughart, a soldier who elected to carry the 7.62mm M—14 into the urban battlefield of Somalia in 1993 rather than the 5.56mm CAR—15 (M—16—variant):

'His rifle may have been heavier and comparatively awkward and delivered a mean recoil, but it damn sure knocked a man down with one bullet, and in combat, one shot was all you got. You shoot a guy, you want to see him go down; you don't want to be guessing for the next five hours whether you hit him, or whether he's still waiting for you in the weeds.' [1]

With the wisdom of a combat veteran, Howe describes the lethality necessary for a cartridge in combat—one—round knockdown power.

How did we get from military cartridges with proven one—round knockdown power such as the 30—06 and 7.62mm to the 5.56mm? The journey starts with the term 'tumbling.' This term has been associated with the .223 cal./5.56mm cartridge, since early in its marketing as a potential military cartridge to this day. The very word, tumbling, prompts images of a bullet traveling end over end through the human body in 360—degree loops: in reality, it does not move this way at all.

Dr. Martin L. Fackler, COL., USA (Ret.) served as a surgeon in Vietnam during 1968 and, subsequently, pursued the research of terminal ballistics by observing the effects of bullets fired into blocks of ballistic gelatin. In 'Wounding patterns for military rifle bullets,' he reports the observation that 'all' non—deforming pointed bullets—this included the 30—06 and 7.62mm military full—metal jacket bullets—— 'yawed' 180 degrees while passing through the gelatin to exit base—forward; i.e., heaviest end forward. The 5.56mm projectile acted in the same manner with a very precise exception: These rounds 'yawed' to 90—degrees, and then fragmented at their weakened serrated band (cannelure) into two or more pieces when fired into ballistic gelatin. However, the 5.56mm projectile does NOT always yaw or fragment. Under field conditions, the probability of these effects is reduced by the following factors:

——The round strikes the target at less than 2700 feet per second. That velocity is reduced by: the farther the range to the target, the greater reduction in velocity; shortened weapon barrel length as is the case with the shorter M—4 carbine; and/or, manufacturing variances in the cartridge.

——Variances in human body thickness and flesh density and consistency.

In those cases, the bullet neither yaws nor fragments and causes only a pencil size hole through the body; i.e., small hole in, small hole out. Neither Dr. Fackler nor anyone else has provided any empirical data or estimate on the incidence of the 5.56mm yaw/fragmentation effect on enemy soldiers. Conversely, since first used by Americans in combat, there has been a consistent observation from the field—enemy soldiers continue to fire their weapons after being hit by multiple 5.56mm bullets; evidently, no yaw/fragmentation effect. Nevertheless, the term 'tumble' was apparently derived from idealized yaw action and, as suggested by the following, was chosen in lieu of the word yaw because it would 'sell' better. [2]

The book, The Black Rifle, M16 Retrospective by Edward C. Ezell and R. Blake Stevens, ' . . . is, so far as [the authors] could make it so, the truth about the controversial 5.56mm caliber AR—15 (M16)—what it is, what it is not, where it came from, and why.'

Edward C. Ezell, Ph.D., now deceased, was the Curator/Supervisor of the Division of Armed Forces History, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC and the editor of perhaps the world's most famous gun book, Small Arms of the World. The Black Rifle contains one of the earliest characterizations that the .223 cal. bullet tumbled in a brochure produced by Colt's Patent Fire Arms Manufacturing Company, Inc. The caption written by the book's authors reads, 'From the first Colt AR—15 brochure, produced in a desperate attempt to interest somebody — anybody — in the merits of the AR—15's 'unmatched superiority.'' In one of the three internal brochure illustrations is text reading, in part, 'On impact the tumbling action of the .223 caliber ammunition increases effectiveness.' [3]

In 1961, Colt's did get somebody's attention. The Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA) of the Department of Defense (DoD) was enjoined by the Kennedy Administration to explore how the United States could support a foreign ally in a 'limited' war. In the spring of 1961, ARPA's Project AGILE was implemented to supply 'research and engineering support for the military and paramilitary forces engaged in or threatened by conflict in remote areas of the world.' In October of 1961, ARPA provided ten Colt's AR—15's to Vietnamese Forces in Saigon to conduct a limited test. The Black Rifle remarks of this test, 'The number of rifles might have been small, but the enthusiastic reaction of the Vietnamese and their American advisors alike who handled and fired the AR—15s was just as [Colt's marketing agent] had predicted.' Armed with these positive results, ARPA succeeded in expanding the Project AGILE study by procuring 1,000 AR—15s for distribution among select Vietnamese units for field—testing. Ezell & Stevens write that this approval resulted in ' . . . saving Colt's from almost sure financial disaster and also setting the stage for the most influential yet controversial document so far in the history of the already controversial AR—15.' [4]

The purpose of this test, as set forth in, ARPA, 'Report of Task 13A, Test of ArmaLite Rifle, AR—15,' dated 31 July 1962, was ' . . . a comparison between the AR—15 and the M2 Carbine to determine which is a more suitable replacement for shoulder weapons in selected units of the Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces (RVNAF).' The Project AGILE results were summed up, in part, by ARPA as follows: 'The suitability of the AR—15 as the basic shoulder weapon for the Vietnamese has been established. For the type of conflict now occurring in Vietnam, the weapon was also found by its users and by MAAG advisors to be superior in virtually all respects to the M1 Rifle, M1 and M2 Carbines, Thompson Sub—Machine Gun, and Browning Automatic Rifle.' NOTE: This study and its recommendations concerned the suitability of the AR—15 for Vietnamese soldiers, who were described by the testers to be of 'small stature, body configuration and light weight,' NOT larger stature United States soldiers. [5]

In any case, the report was widely read and some of its components came under serious question, especially those purporting to describe the demonstrated lethality of the .223 caliber cartridge. The following are three such examples from the Project AGILE report:

Example 1. 'On 160900 June, one platoon from the 340 Ranger company was on a ground operation . . . and contacted 3 armed VC in heavily forested jungle.. . . At a distance of approximately 15 meters, one Ranger fired an AR—15 full automatic hitting one VC with 3 rounds with the first burst. One round in the head took it completely off. Another in the right arm, took it completely off. One round hit him in the right side, causing a hole about 5 inches in diameter.. . . (Rangers)'

Example 2. 'On 9 June a Ranger Platoon from the 40th Infantry Regt. Was given the mission of ambushing an estimated VC Company.. . .

Number of VC killed: 5 [Descriptions of the one—round killing wounds follow.]

Back wound, which caused the thoracic cavity to explode.
Stomach wound, which caused the abdominal cavity to explode.
Buttock wound, which destroyed all tissue of both buttocks.
Chest wound from right to left; destroyed the thoracic cavity.
Heel wound; the projectile entered the bottom of the right foot causing the leg to split from the foot to the hip.

These deaths were inflicted by the AR—15 and all were instantaneous except the buttock wound. He lived approximately five minutes. (7th Infantry Division)'

Example 3. 'On 13 April, a Special Forces team made a raid on a small village. In the raid, seven VC were killed. Two were killed by AR—15 fire. Range was 50 meters. One man was hit in the head; it looked like it exploded. A second man was hit in the chest, his back was one big hole. (VN Special Forces)' [6.]

The above 'field—reports' are incredulous on their face and some in DoD requested that these results be duplicated scientifically. The Army Wound Ballistics Laboratory at Edgewood Arsenal attempted to do just that. Using .223 caliber Remington ammunition provided by Colt's representative, they conducted their 'standard lethality trials that consisted of measuring the cavitational and other effects of firing at known distances into blocks of ballistic gelatin, and where necessary, anaesthetized goats.' They failed to duplicate the explosive effects reported by Project AGILE. In November 1962, the Army initiated 'Worldwide' tactical and technical tests of the AR—15 using U. S. soldiers. Edgewood was tasked to perform further lethality tests using modified .223 caliber ammunition. Ezell and Stevens describe the modifications: 'They had modified some 55—grain .223 caliber ball bullets of Remington manufacture by cutting approximately 1/4 inch off the nose and drilling a 3/32—inch—diameter hole about 1/4 inch deep into the lead core of each bullet.' The results? The authors continue, 'As it turned out, even the hollow—points failed to duplicate anything like the spectacular effects recorded by the Vietnamese unit commanders and their American advisors, which had subsequently been taken as fact and much used as propaganda.' [7.]

The .223 caliber cartridge was morphed into the 5.56mm NATO cartridge and adopted for the United States Service Rifle M—16 (formerly, AR—15) replacing the 7.62mm M—14. How could such propaganda have convinced the Department of Defense to adopt the .223 caliber cartridge? 'All this was inspired by the principle —— which is quite true in itself —— that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper stata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large—scale falsehoods.' Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf [8.]

As is usually the case, a judgment based on lies was to adversely affect those at the 'pointy end of the spear.' American warriors reported enemy soldiers continuing to close and fire their weapons after sustaining multiple hits by 5.56mm bullets. This happened as early as 9 December 1965 in the official 'After Action Report of the Ia Drang Valley Operation . . ..' popularized by the movie and book We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young. The commanding officer of the battalion engaged there, Col. Harold G. Moore, USA, writes of assaulting enemy soldiers being hit by 5.56mm rounds: "Even after being hit several times in the chest, many continued firing and moving for several more steps before dropping dead." [9.]

Later in that war, a similar experience is voiced by Col. John Hayworth, USA (Ret.): 'In one fire—fight, I saw my RTO place three rounds [of 5.56 mm] in the chest of a charging NVA regular at 50 yards. He kept firing his AK and never slowed down. At 30 yards, I hit him with a blast of double ought buck. It picked him up off his feet and he didn't get up again.' [10.]

In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the DoD increased the weight of the 5.56mm 55—grain bullet (M193) to 62—grains, replaced some of its lead core with a tungsten steel core, painted the bullet tip green and designated the new cartridge M855. In 1991, the Pentagon sent its warriors to the Gulf War with this new green—tip cartridge. Maj. Howard Feldmeier, USMC (Ret.) was there: ' . . . several Marines commented that they had to shoot Iraqi soldiers 2—3 or more times with the 62—grain 5.56mm green tip ammo before they stopped firing back at them . . ..' That report is exemplified by one of an Iraqi officer who was thrown from his vehicle and set afire by an explosion: 'Somehow he managed to hold on to his AK—47. He also got up, still on fire, faced the firing line of Marines and charged forward firing his weapon from the hip. He didn't hit anyone but two Marines each nailed him with a three round burst from their M—16A2s. One burst hit him immediately above his heart, the other in his belly button. [He] . . . kept right on charging and firing until his magazine was empty. When he got up to the Marines two of them tackled him and rolled him in the sand to put out the fire. . . . He was quickly carried back to the battalion aid station . . .. The surgeons told me he certainly died of burns, but not necessarily from the six 5.56mm wounds . . ..' [11.]

In spite of the above 'lesson learned,' the DoD dispatched its warriors to combat in Somalia in 1993 with the same flawed 'green tip' cartridge as testified in Mark Bowden's book Black Hawk Down: 'His weapon was the most sophisticated infantry rifle in the world, a customized CAR—15, and he was shooting the army's new 5.56mm green tip round. . . . The bullet made a small, clean hole, and unless it happened to hit the heart or spine, it wasn't enough to stop a man in his tracks. Howe felt he had to hit a guy five or six times just to get his attention.'

The Pentagon remained unmoved by that experience of its warriors and continued to send them to war underpowered. On 4 April 2002, I received an e—mail from a trooper in Afghanistan who appeals, in part: 'The current—issue 62gr 5.56mm (223) round, especially when fired from the short—barreled, M—4 carbine, is proving itself (once again) to be woefully inadequate as [a] man stopper. Engagements at all ranges are requiring multiple, solid hits to permanently bring down enemy soldiers. Penetration is also sadly deficient. Even light barriers are not perforated by this rifle/cartridge combination.' [12.]

Additional observations of the impotence of the 5.56mm round soon appeared in official and professional publications. In their official briefing 'Lessons Learned in Afghanistan' dated April 2002, LTC C. Dean, USA and SFC S. Newland, USA of the U. S. Army Natick Soldier Center reported: 'Soldiers asked for a weapon with a larger round. 'So it will drop a man with one shot.'' In the October 2002 issue of the Marine Corps Gazette magazine, Capt Philip Treglia, USMC reflected on his Afghanistan experience in December 2001 by reporting that, 'the 5.56 mm round will not put a man to the ground with two shots to the chest.' Capt Treglia's men were trained to fire two bullets into an enemy's chest and if that did not knock him down, they were to shift fire to the head. This is the corrective action implemented for these Marines and many others in the Armed Forces for the impotent 5.56mm cartridge rather than equipping them with a rifle that fired a bullet with one—round knockdown power. And, as Capt Treglia reported, multiple hits with the 5.56mm bullet didn't work any better in Afghanistan than it did anytime in the past.

In a 3 March 2003 written briefing, LCdr. Gary K. Roberts, USNR recommended to RAdm. Albert M. Calland, Commander, Naval Special Warfare (NSW) Command that he upgrades his command's 5.56mm weapons to the 6.8mm cartridge. That briefing, entitled, 'Enhancement of NSW Carbine & Rifle Capability,' opens by observing:

Recent combat operations have highlighted terminal performance problems, generally manifested as failures to rapidly incapacitate opponents, during combat operations when M855 62gr. 'Green Tip' FMJ is fired from 5.56mm rifles and carbines. Failure to rapidly incapacitate armed opponents increases the risk of U.S. forces being injured or killed and jeopardizes mission success. [13.]

That statement was prophetic.

On 12 September 2003, in Ar Ramadi, Iraq elements of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Special Forces Group engaged enemy forces in a firefight. An insurgent was struck in the torso by several rounds of 5.56mm ammunition from their M—4 carbines (this is the current shortened version of the M—16 Service Rifle). He continued to fire his AK—47 and mortally wounded MSgt Kevin N. Morehead, age 33, from Little Rock, Arkansas. The engagement continued with the same insurgent surprising SFC William M. Bennett, age 35, from Seymour, Tennessee from a hiding place and killing him instantly with a three—round burst to the head and neck. SSgt Robert E Springer, threw away his M—4 carbine, drew an obsolete WWI/WWII vintage .45 caliber pistol and killed the insurgent with one shot. A close inspection of the enemy's corpse revealed that he had been hit by seven 5.56 mm rounds in his torso. Also, in this engagement, these soldiers were provided with a commercially produced 5.56mm round of 77—grain weight vice the 62—grain bullets in use by general—purpose forces. Obviously, the larger 5.56mm round was of little consequence. [14.]

These reports are consistent with my own experience during three tours of duty in Vietnam from the goat incident in 1964 described above to service with the 3rd Marine Division in 1968—69; experience that repeatedly reminded me that this 5.56mm cartridge was nothing more than the full—metal jacket military version of the commercial .223 caliber Remington cartridge. The .223 caliber Remington was and is today commercially advertised and sold as a 'varmint cartridge' for hunting groundhogs, prairie dogs and woodchucks. The cartridge is offered with soft point, hollow point, fragmentation, or projectiles incorporating two or more of these attributes to enhance its lethality and assure a 'clean kill': one—round knockdown power on varmints. States such as the Commonwealth of Virginia do not permit it to be used for hunting deer or bear because its lethality—with or without those enhancements——does not assure a 'clean kill' on big game. [15] Yet, its full metal jacket military counterpart continues to be issued to American warriors in spite of almost 40 years of Lessons Learned that enemy soldiers continue to fire their weapons and have even killed our soldiers after sustaining multiple hits from 5.56mm bullets.

The lethality of the 5.56mm cartridge, sold on lies, cannot be fixed in truth. It is time the Department of Defense recognizes this 'Big Lie' from the Vietnam War and in the names of MSgt Kevin N. Morehead and SFC William M. Bennett replaces this varmint cartridge with one that gives our warriors that critical capability described by SFC Paul Howe above——one—round knockdown power!

The author's 25—year Marine career included service as an infantryman and intelligence officer with highlights of three tours of duty in Vietnam and, ultimately, representing the Defense Intelligence Agency as a briefer to the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense and other Washington area decision makers. He currently manages MILINET an Internet forum on international political/military affairs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Bowden, M, Black Hawk Down, Penguin Books, 2000, p. 208.
2. Fackler, ML,"Wounding patterns of military rifle bullets," International Defense Review, January 1989, pp. 59—64.
3. Ezell, EC & Stevens, RB, The Black Rifle, M16 Retrospective, Collector Grade Publications, Inc., 1994, p. 98.
4. Ibid. pp.99—100.
5. Ibid. pp.101—106.
6. Ibid. pp. 106—107.
7. Ibid. p. 116.
8. Hitler, A, Mein Kampf. James Murphy, translator. London, New York, Melbourne: Hurst and Blackett Ltd; April 1942; page 134.
9. Moore, Col. HG, 'After Action Report, Ian Drang Valley Operation 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry 14—16 November 1965,' dated, 9 December 1965, p. 8.
10. Hayworth, Col. J, E—Mail to author, 23 April 2002.
11. Feldmeier, Maj. H, E—Mail to author, 21 May 2002.
12. Anonymous, E—Mail to MILINET, 26 March 2002.
13. Roberts, USNR, LCdr. Gary K., Brief to RAdm Albert M. Calland, CMDR NAVSPECWARCOM, 'Enhancement of NSW Carbine & Rifle Capability' brief, 3 March 2003.
14. Jones, Bruce L., 'MILINET: Case Studies in Combat Failures of 5.56mm Ammunition,' 3 November 2003
15. http://www.dgif.state.va.us/hunting/regs/section6.html#legaluse

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/the_last_big_lie_of_vietnam_ki.html

Tony,

I tried to simplify the example as much as possible to illustrate the processes. Ballistic gelatin actually does an admirable job of performing like water dynamically. If we set the gel in a milk jug, the results to the milk jug will be quite similar, but the gel will hold together better than the water. The gel "grows" enough to rupture the jug. Pack the jug with hamburger which has substantially less moisture than water or gelatin or living flesh and I am not so sure what would happen. Gelatin's property of being able to retain a shape is what sets it apart and makes it so useful. Kinda hard to set a block of liquid water up for shooting, and harder still to look at it after the shot

I know there have been tests in dead pigs/cows/goats/sheep to get closer to real life. The only tests I know of on live animal were the Nilo Farms tests.

Actual flesh is highly variable. Hearts and lungs and spleens and bladders etc model more closely to the example of balloons. Large chunks of muscle and bone are much, much less so.

How and what a bullet strikes on the way in has easily visible consequences. One thing premium bullets like the Barnes bullets do is to give us a bullet with virtually 100% weight retention with a mushrooming bullet that we may be certain of what damage is done by the bullet and what is because the bullet fragmented. Fragmentation is not part of the question with them.

For us, every animal we kill is an opportunity to learn. Examination of the kills made by those we hunt with adds. We have in many ways better opportunity to understand if we just look. That's hard to beat.

Thank you Tony. Interesting. It's a bit funny when I see something that definitive written my a Major. All I could think of was Oliver North at his hearings asking that senator if he REALLY thought that a Lt. Col. could have been put into such a decision making process alone.

What he says doesn't correlate with the TV show "Future Weapons" on the Discovery Channel. They reported that the .223/5.56 were simply trade offs so that soldiers could carry more ammunition. They further noted that many Americans were killed in jungle warfare because while hiding behind trees, the NVA simply shot through the tree versus the .223/5.56 having no such penetration power. If you ever look at the old Vietnam videos, check out the number of soldiers holding the M-16 over their heads and firing while they remained behind a stone wall. I know what I saw and what I was told. The AK-47 were much cherished by Americans in 66-67 and we grabbed everyone we could find along with ammo pouches. It would seem that if there were even a shred of evidence supporting the Major's contentions, every terrorist group, third world country, despotic regime would be carrying the M-16 and its derivatives. We both know what their weapon of choice actually is though.

Great video nubman. I suppose that's bullet channel cavitation there, huh? Damned sure looked like hydrostatic motion to me, but I suppose that it's a matter of definitions.

And to think: we got to this point by discussing what was minimal requirements for sighting a rifle in.

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
Alf, OW, those were very good and thought provoking comments. Obviously I don't share all of them, especially since we've tended to center around "deer" as targets. Some physical phenomenon has to explain why a praire dog can be disintegrated with a hyper velocity round and simply punctured by a .22 rimfire. I don't know if it's ft.lbs, joules, or hydrostatic shock, but certainly it hasn't been explained in any of the c&p's thus far.

Now Allan, let me address an issue with you. I guess I'd rather be a "blowhard" any day over a pompass asshole who can only resort to calling someone names liek "blowhard" or "childish" who disagrees with their input. I simply took what you said. I didn't "interpret" anything. I consider myself an ETHICAL hunter and I consider the game I persue as deserving the best efforts that both me and my firearm can sustain in order to take it. I am saddened that anyone would just shoot at a deer without being concerned of where the bullet hit. OW is PROBABLY correct in someone shooting within a 6 inch circle at 200 yards being able to kill a deer. HOWEVER, consider that if you're aiming for that high shoulder and you miss it 6 inches to the rear, you destroy lungs and the animal is taken. But what happens is you sighted in MODeer instead and your "zero" was already 3-5 inches off? Now you high shoulder is 9 to 12 inches off at 200 yards and you've got a gut shot deer. If your guide asks you where you shot the deer, what do you tell him? Anyone, and I mean ANYONE who talks about shooting deer with a distraction of inhumanity to an ethical shot should simply stay the hell out of the woods to begin with. The 80% of Americans who do not hunt and have no opinion either pro or con about hunting certainly won't agree with your logic either.


"If I provoke you into thinking then I've done my good deed for the day!" Nice quote. Doesn't seem too sincere but still a nice quote.

You LIE and put words into my mouth by saying I "vehemently eschew sightning in" and at that
you're trying to sound reasonable while doing it? well, makes you a sanctimonious LIAR.

Any complaints on your part of my calling you a blowhard are irrelevant because like my calling you a LIAR I have the ultimate defense, TRUTH.

you did NOT repeat what I said, you said what you wanted to and attributed it to me to suit YOUR purpose, then you compound it by calling me a "pompous asshole"... funny that you have no objection to name calling yourself...

I said regimented match shooting is no indication of field skills.
That is what I have said though I have said it several times.

Go back and read what I said, not what your fevered imaginings tell you I said.

Varmint bullets that "blow up" on deer thus creating your alleged "hydrostatic shock"
vreat wounds that rarely prevent the deer from moving, and ALWAYS require a second hit to anchor the deer (presuming that second shot is a proper kind of round that penetrates)
so any claim of "hydrostatic shock"
is specious at best.

FMJ or Solid bullets regardless of speed do not blow-up groundhogs. Even deer bullets don't, they behave more or less like FMJ's.

Disruption of the central nervous system, circulatory system or specific critical organs
or skeletal structures bring things down.

I reject utterly the concept of hydrostatic shock.

People who claim to have seen it are like those who see UFO's, they see something else and make themselved believe that the extraordinary is the easiest explanation.

Dead deer without much blood loss? on a heart shot the blood stops circulating and that's just as good as letting it leak out.

Hell the heart can be stopped by pericardial effusion, the heart basically can't expand
because it is "hydrolocked", not much blood loss is required to happen, it's WHERE the blood is or isn't that's important.

Even rupturing the septum that seperates the two sides of the heart will cease effective circulation without the blood needing to be
leaking "overboard"

These and a list of other potential "Fast fatal" explainations could fill pages with reasons for the deaths without blood loss.

Even blunt impact to the chest cavity without penetation by something as slow as a fist can kill a human IF that impact occours at the exact correct instant in the heart rythm, so why should we start searching for phantoms to explain the death of a deer which really doesn't have that much difference from a man's circulation system?

Some people can't accept "don't know"
Other people make things up even though the previous "Don't know" was because determining which of a long list of possible causes was responsible in any specific instance.

Other people can accept that they shot the deer, it died, they took it home and ate it.

I'll bet some of you would have insisted on autopsies on every solder killed storming a hostile beach.

In short, some people just can't take YES for an answer.



AD

ALF, Outdoor Writer

Excelent post.....

Allan DeGroot, Excelent post...

quote:

It would seem that if there were even a shred of evidence supporting the Major's contentions, every terrorist group, third world country, despotic regime would be carrying the M-16 and its derivatives. We both know what their weapon of choice actually is though.

Not sure if you read a different article than the one I posted, but...the inference I got from the major was that he thought the M-16 and it's pipsqueak round sucked for killing the enemy. Hell, it had a hard time doing the same to a damn goat.

He -- and the DOD -- certainly didn't seem to think much of the tales about decapitations and blowing limbs off, as in "The above 'field—reports' are incredulous," i.e. unbelievable. -TONY

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

quote:

It would seem that if there were even a shred of evidence supporting the Major's contentions, every terrorist group, third world country, despotic regime would be carrying the M-16 and its derivatives. We both know what their weapon of choice actually is though.

Not sure if you read a different article than the one I posted, but...the inference I got from the major was that he thought the M-16 and it's pipsqueak round sucked for killing the enemy. Hell, it had a hard time doing the same to a damn goat.

He -- and the DOD -- certainly didn't seem to think much of the tales about decapitations and blowing limbs off, as in "The above 'field—reports' are incredulous," i.e. unbelievable. -TONY

george, was reading that imaginary post in his mind...The one no else can see...

george, should we call this a hydroshocking piston?

/

This thread has sure taken some interesting curves. All I know is that in Northern Minnesota woods my POS Mauser that could not shoot better than 4" at 100 yards with the cheap Herters 8MM soft points I could afford at the time sure was capable of killing deer with one shot. Hydrostatic or other wise. Have several other rifles now and several are under MOA, but back home I would feel just fine with that old Mauser.

Wow, all of this talk just to answer a simple 200 yard question.

I stand my my post in the first page of this thread and still say that a 6" group is acceptable at 200 yards but not desirable.

I skimmed a lot of the pages but in essence, a 6" group at 200 yards means that the bullet will hit no further than 3" from point of aim.

Now, if one chooses to shoot a rifle that groups such as this, it is my suggestion to ALWAYS aim in the center of the kill zone if you happen to have that 200 yard shot.

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
Wow, all of this talk just to answer a simple 200 yard question.

I stand my my post in the first page of this thread and still say that a 6" group is acceptable at 200 yards but not desirable.

I skimmed a lot of the pages but in essence, a 6" group at 200 yards means that the bullet will hit no further than 3" from point of aim.

Now, if one chooses to shoot a rifle that groups such as this, it is my suggestion to ALWAYS aim in the center of the kill zone if you happen to have that 200 yard shot.

Aw, nah he di-in't! Day-umm, Doc. Try to have a perfectly uncivil debate and turn it into something we can all learn from? FTS...

KG

P.S> passt my Bedtime, obviously.

quote:

Posted 03 March 2008 07:16 Hide Post
Miles 58:

Your analogy of the BB at varying speed in a balloon of water is valid, however can the same be said of shooting the same BB through a slab of living muscle ?

Alf,

I think we both look at this very similarly and understand this equally but describe it a little differently.

Yes! the same can in fact be said of a slab of living muscle! If I punch you hard enough to leave a bruise, the visible bruise is the blood that leaked out of the blood vessels damaged by the hydraulic shock of the impact caused a hydraulic over pressure that ruptures the blood vessels. My fist did not contact the vessels that ruptured. I have seen a person die from massive bruising like this with minimal other damage.

If we smack a deer with a BB that happens to be an eight foot cube and moving at something like 200 FPS assuming a centered deer there will be enormous hydraulic damage and zero penetration. Aside from the CNS damage, the vascular damage would include rupture of the major vessels in the chest and abdomen, Spleen, liver, bladder if sufficient urine is present, most vessels in muscle tissue would rupture. The model scales to this absurdly large size as well as being a reasonable approximation at normal BB/water balloon size and very much reduced velocity.

The point being the over pressure in the animal proximal to the bullet path is the result of hydrostatic shock, and that damage is fully as capable of killing every bit as efficiently as direct contact by the bullet.

My personal opinion is that damage from the hydraulics doesn't extend very far, not much more than a few inches in the case of very high velocity/energy projectiles. Further, if we were to scale that to enormous using a two inch diameter flat nose slug moving at 3000 fps and hit an animal with it the added area showing hydraulic damage would IMO be nowhere near proportionally larger, and in many foreseeable situations maybe no larger at all. Yet the same slug might well nearly completely vaporize the 400 lbs of water in a 55 gallon drum. Tissue moderates the hydraulics a lot. No doubt about that!

quote:

As we know that temporary channel size is drag dependent and drag is a function of velocity

Alf, I worked on jet engines and rocket engines for most of 30 years. I don't ever recall "knowing" what you've stated. How can "drag" possibly be a "FUNCTION" of velocity. Drag is a resistence TO velocity.

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
Wow, all of this talk just to answer a simple 200 yard question.

I stand my my post in the first page of this thread and still say that a 6" group is acceptable at 200 yards but not desirable.

I skimmed a lot of the pages but in essence, a 6" group at 200 yards means that the bullet will hit no further than 3" from point of aim.

Now, if one chooses to shoot a rifle that groups such as this, it is my suggestion to ALWAYS aim in the center of the kill zone if you happen to have that 200 yard shot.

i would string along with this statement, with the caveat that the ammunition and rifle (and the shooter, for that matter) should always be as accurate as possible and always striving for ways to improve.

/

Not true at all Alf. A person diving off the Golden Gate can only achieve a terminal velocity of 120 mph. As there is no acellerations past the point of inertial gravity, such speeds are THEORETICALLY possible to survive as long as the correct profile is maintained when entering the water (i.e, normal diving position versus flat). The drag on the body is minimal at normal speed but evidence suggests that at 120 mph, it is physically impossible for the average person to maintain the correct position. Once the arms fold, they tend to be broken or pulled out of joint. The drag coefficient on the body is considerably different at normal heights versus shorter ones obviously. Still this has little relevance to bullets that will maintain their posture throughout until striking an object of higher density. Since pressure and velocity vary inversely, it would seem that gravity would play a bigger role on trajectory than drag would. Cosmic particles as well as radiation are solids that pass through our bodies every second without disintegrating, so again, the mass and construction of the bullet would play a major role in any set theory on bullet cavitation. The idea behind the FMJ was to create a very small bullet channel with little cavitation as you call it, hydrostatic pressue I call it. On dangerous big game,however, this is considered the better choice in hopes that significant nerve damage can be done much faster than a conventional softpoint would do.

As I've continued to state, this is all conjecture based on individual opinions of what happens to a bullet/any bullet. For every "fact" there will continue to be a "counter fact" because it's based on opinions. The laws of physics are inviolate, but most times with shooters, we only use those that support our positions. I'm guilty as charged.

/

All of the learned science, experiences, proposals, theory, speculation, etc. regarding the original topic is superceded by one very absolute: it all rests with the trigger puller, not the equipment. The best or the worst of deer rifles are subject to that one absolute.
Again, learn to shoot well with whatever rifle/caliber combination and then a less than "perfect" caliber/rifle can be made to work well for it's intended purpose-kill deer.
Again, do not under estimate the knowledge gained by competetion shooting of whatever form.

dsiteman, thanks for bringing things back to stark reality. You're absolutely right. I heard a remark last week that struck a nerve on this: "Nothing makes you a better shot faster than having to trail a wounded animal a great distance." I still shudder to think there are some among us who say, "It's on paper, that's good enough to kill a deer."

dsiteman!!!!!! You're back!!!!! Now maybe you can tell me what a "MU" is? Have you had a strenuous week of hall monitoring? Or did someone in another forum use the word "fuck" and you and your coven have to fly over there to chastize them? Anyway, you and your piety have been missed. Especially since I've been losing sleep wondering what a MU is.