Is it a myth that enemy combatants usually take a few rounds of 5.56..... - Page 4 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Military Weapons Forum AR15, AK47, SKS, H&K, Galil, CETME, FN/FAL, Tanks, Ships, Jets, Helicopters....

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Beretta PX4 Storm Magazine .40 S&W 17 Rounds Steel Blue JM4PX4017 Cope's Distribuitng Cope's Distributing 2 03-14-2017 09:08 AM
What a Preppers Arsenal Should Be Marlin94 Firearms General Discussion 101 02-01-2017 10:58 PM
HK USP9/P2000 Compact 9mm 13 rounds Cope's Distribuitng Cope's Distributing 0 01-24-2017 03:26 PM
IMI 5.56 55-gr. FMJ 300 Rounds with Dry Box - $109.99 slickguns.com For Sale 0 01-13-2017 08:54 AM
Help me round out my collection... Kodiak Jack Firearms General Discussion 31 01-04-2017 09:51 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-20-2017, 08:53 PM
mefunkymxw's Avatar
mefunkymxw mefunkymxw is offline
that's like, your opinion
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Virginia
Age: 35
Posts: 17,401
Thanks: 10,827
Thanked 23,734 Times in 9,810 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinlessorrow View Post
No, you said a grazing wound would knock off a limb, his arm didn't fall off anymore than if he had be shot with M855A1.

The second round took center mass and exited through his spine(we found him later on).

Shooting anyone in the spine is guaranteed to stop them.
at close range it will knock off a limb, as you increase distance the projectile loses energy overcoming the friction of moving through air.... and i would put it to you that the hit with the 50 still crippled that limb, while an identical hit with m855a1 at 500 yards may not even provide for enough energy to cause separation of the projectile.

additionally i would say that the spine hit wasnt necessary, 50 still would have gotten the job done even without a CNS hit...

at 500 yards 50 has a rough energy of 6500 ft-lbs.... that is over 5 times more then 5.56 point blank.... it also has over 1400 ft-lbs at 2000 yards which is just over 5.56 at the muzzle... not even really a comparison here especially as one is designed for defeating light armor and the other was not.

either way its still not operationally practical or economically feasible to give everyone a 50.... hence we have the need for intermediate and full rifle cartridges... 5.56 will get the job done, may not get it done the first time, but maybe it will... its dependent upon a huge number of variables. if you like it, use it... if not, dont... pretty simple.
Old 04-20-2017, 09:02 PM
ajole ajole is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,928
Thanks: 3,116
Thanked 7,928 Times in 2,645 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mefunkymxw View Post
only major ballistic reason for them to switch to 5.45 is BC and slightly greater max effective range....
Or maybe it's the superior terminal ballistics, and the ability to carry a larger load of ammo in the same weight load out, compared to the larger stuff?


Which is what everyone has been saying is the REAL advantage to the faster smaller bullets.



BTW...WAS steel really cheaper than lead?

I mean...I know it is now...but WAS it, back then?
Old 04-20-2017, 09:11 PM
mefunkymxw's Avatar
mefunkymxw mefunkymxw is offline
that's like, your opinion
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Virginia
Age: 35
Posts: 17,401
Thanks: 10,827
Thanked 23,734 Times in 9,810 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK103K View Post
I kind of doubt that.

I remember back during the Russians Afgan war reading accounts from doctors in Pakistan about the sudden change in the wounds that they were getting/seeing.

They had been accustomed to the wounds from the .30 caliber guns that were prevalent at the time in that area, and all of a sudden the Russians show up with something that was more destructive. They were calling them "poison bullets" or something of the such. I do remember that it made quite the impression on them, and they sounded a lot like the boy who wrote that bit in the link at the start here.
and how long does it take for some poisons to kill???

getting wounded by the 5.45 provided the medical conditions in afghanistan/pakistan back in the 70s/80s is probably about as bad as getting stabbed by a bayonet in the civil war.... you might survive the initial wound, but you will almost certainly die from slow hemorrhage or the infection.

what did they call the 30 cal stuff used previously "the killer bullet"????

look both 5.45 and 7.62 will kill... sometimes 5.45 will tumble, sometimes it wont, sometimes 7.62x39 will tumble if it hits a bone, other times it wont... alot of factors, and you may never replicate the terminal ballistics of one shot compared to another....

you know what is constant.... you can make a 5.45 round for cheaper then 7.62
 
Old 04-20-2017, 09:16 PM
mefunkymxw's Avatar
mefunkymxw mefunkymxw is offline
that's like, your opinion
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Virginia
Age: 35
Posts: 17,401
Thanks: 10,827
Thanked 23,734 Times in 9,810 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajole View Post
Or maybe it's the superior terminal ballistics, and the ability to carry a larger load of ammo in the same weight load out, compared to the larger stuff?


Which is what everyone has been saying is the REAL advantage to the faster smaller bullets.



BTW...WAS steel really cheaper than lead?

I mean...I know it is now...but WAS it, back then?
#1 i dont think we have commodity price charts that far back, but one thing is for sure iron ore production has always outpaced lead extraction... lead is generally a byproduct of mining other materials like silver, copper, zinc, etc.

#2 they had 30 round 7.62x39 mags, and the made the same capacity 5.45 mags... i suspect that they didnt change their basic load, they just had an easier time carrying it, and provided russian mentality of everything being heavy, i dont think that was a huge deciding factor when compared to what was essentially half price ammo.

you have to remember that they went from an intermediate cartridge to another intermediate cartridge, which is unlike what America/NATO did... we went from a full rifle cartridge to an intermediate cartridge, so the carrying capacity difference was much more of a dramatic change for us then the reds.... they might have only saved a pound or 20 ounces for the same loadout.... going from 308 to 223 will give you essentially double capacity, which is comparatively a huge savings, but not at all applicable to the ruskies.
Old 04-21-2017, 01:39 AM
steve marshall steve marshall is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: New Hampshire
Age: 66
Posts: 2,719
Thanks: 889
Thanked 2,952 Times in 1,433 Posts
Default

The first gunshot wound I ever saw was gruesome to this 18 year old. It was 5.56. I once saw a water buffalo DRT from one unaimed shot from an M-16.
Old 04-21-2017, 04:10 AM
Unobtanium's Avatar
Unobtanium Unobtanium is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NW,AR
Age: 31
Posts: 8,920
Thanks: 3,363
Thanked 7,642 Times in 3,856 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mefunkymxw View Post
as it relates to the OP i think there is a reason rapid pairs are essentially standard operating procedure...

there are a huge amount of variables in ballistics (and explosives) which affect the end result, and its really a game of probability and doing as much as you can to reduce risk... better projectile construction, more kinetic energy, volume of fire/hits will all help to ensure the result you are looking for...

but the bottom line is that zero kinetic energy means zero energy transfer which means zero damage... most intermediate cartridges have comparable energy, but all things being the same i would prefer more energy given the same sized package in order to reduce the risks of something going awry with a huge number of variables....

there is a cut off for kinetic energy transfer that even with a poorly placed shot, the energy transfer will produce a lethal result... 50 bmg will, even with a grazing hit, knock off a limb, and no matter how poor a shot into soft tissue in the torso will absolutely kill... the issue with 50 is that its not efficient to carry around, so anything less comes down to personal preference from my perspective.

my go to rifles are not 5.56, but all of my defense scenarios are pretty short range....
Maybe if it "grazes" the humerus, lol
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Unobtanium For This Useful Post:
Old 04-21-2017, 04:32 AM
Unobtanium's Avatar
Unobtanium Unobtanium is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NW,AR
Age: 31
Posts: 8,920
Thanks: 3,363
Thanked 7,642 Times in 3,856 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mefunkymxw View Post
and how long does it take for some poisons to kill???

getting wounded by the 5.45 provided the medical conditions in afghanistan/pakistan back in the 70s/80s is probably about as bad as getting stabbed by a bayonet in the civil war.... you might survive the initial wound, but you will almost certainly die from slow hemorrhage or the infection.

what did they call the 30 cal stuff used previously "the killer bullet"????

look both 5.45 and 7.62 will kill... sometimes 5.45 will tumble, sometimes it wont, sometimes 7.62x39 will tumble if it hits a bone, other times it wont... alot of factors, and you may never replicate the terminal ballistics of one shot compared to another....

you know what is constant.... you can make a 5.45 round for cheaper then 7.62
What's interesting to me is that MK319 is cheaper than M80 ball. Wild.
Old 04-21-2017, 06:32 AM
mefunkymxw's Avatar
mefunkymxw mefunkymxw is offline
that's like, your opinion
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Virginia
Age: 35
Posts: 17,401
Thanks: 10,827
Thanked 23,734 Times in 9,810 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unobtanium View Post
What's interesting to me is that MK319 is cheaper than M80 ball. Wild.
depends on tooling, number of steps in process, scale, how many employees you have and what benefits you need to pay em, etc.... lathe cut projectiles are generally the most expensive, swagged or drawn projectiles probably have a comparable cost. what mk319 has going for it is that it is only 130 grains as opposed to 147-150 so less material helps reduce cost.

in this situation (308-308 comparison) you already have the same cases on hand etc.... additionally i would need to see manufacturing cost numbers, but i dont think consumers are seeing those savings right now... you can get m80 for about $0.50 per round, i dont think you will be able to get any of the new stuff for less then $0.90 per round at best, at least until we see greater volumes in the market.

even on midway, just the projectiles for m80 are $0.18-$0.20 per while mk319 type OTMs are $0.28 per.
Old 04-21-2017, 07:07 AM
AK103K's Avatar
AK103K AK103K is offline
Immer Im Einsatz
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: In the shadow of the Shade
Posts: 2,246
Thanks: 1,372
Thanked 2,810 Times in 1,284 Posts
Default

Quote:
getting wounded by the 5.45 provided the medical conditions in afghanistan/pakistan back in the 70s/80s is probably about as bad as getting stabbed by a bayonet in the civil war....
No. The wounds they were reporting were much worse than the .30 caliber wounds they were used to seeing.

I would say if anything, the wounds from the .30 ball would be closer to the bayonet analogy youre suggesting.

Quote:
you know what is constant.... you can make a 5.45 round for cheaper then 7.62
While that is a plus, I dont think that was the main factor here.
The Following User Says Thank You to AK103K For This Useful Post:
Old 04-21-2017, 09:26 AM
Unobtanium's Avatar
Unobtanium Unobtanium is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NW,AR
Age: 31
Posts: 8,920
Thanks: 3,363
Thanked 7,642 Times in 3,856 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mefunkymxw View Post
depends on tooling, number of steps in process, scale, how many employees you have and what benefits you need to pay em, etc.... lathe cut projectiles are generally the most expensive, swagged or drawn projectiles probably have a comparable cost. what mk319 has going for it is that it is only 130 grains as opposed to 147-150 so less material helps reduce cost.

in this situation (308-308 comparison) you already have the same cases on hand etc.... additionally i would need to see manufacturing cost numbers, but i dont think consumers are seeing those savings right now... you can get m80 for about $0.50 per round, i dont think you will be able to get any of the new stuff for less then $0.90 per round at best, at least until we see greater volumes in the market.

even on midway, just the projectiles for m80 are $0.18-$0.20 per while mk319 type OTMs are $0.28 per.
Regardless, I am still boggled that a round made for decades is more costly than a same-metals round made for a few years. I just found it interesting. Also, the MK319 contains more copper than the M80 does, and so I would think it would cost more, even though it does contain less over-all weight, it comes from a lead deficit vs. M80, and copper costs roughly 200% what lead does, currently, maybe a bit more.
The Following User Says Thank You to Unobtanium For This Useful Post:
Old 04-21-2017, 09:29 AM
mefunkymxw's Avatar
mefunkymxw mefunkymxw is offline
that's like, your opinion
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Virginia
Age: 35
Posts: 17,401
Thanks: 10,827
Thanked 23,734 Times in 9,810 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK103K View Post
No. The wounds they were reporting were much worse than the .30 caliber wounds they were used to seeing.

I would say if anything, the wounds from the .30 ball would be closer to the bayonet analogy youre suggesting.


While that is a plus, I dont think that was the main factor here.
well unfortunately all we really have from afghanistan is anecdotal evidence, unless you have some statistics on mortality rates of afghans hit with 7.62x39 during a similar time frame in your back pocket.

i think we agree on the general benefits that can be seen from smaller and faster rounds i think we just prioritize them differently from our own perspectives. what we may disagree on are the drawbacks and motivations of nation-states to move to smaller rounds on huge scales.

i still think that when we are talking about military super powers they are all technically sensitive to price as they have to keep the gears of society turning. even a 1% savings over a huge set will yield impressive results.... thats why winglets on the tips of carrier jet wings only save about 2% fuel consumption, but you multiply that 2% over every single passenger flight over a year and you are seeing savings in the tens of millions of dollars or more.

if you think what was novel about the 7.62x39 in 1947 was that it essentially gave 6 times the capacity of the other standard bolt action rifles back then and it was capable of semi and full auto fire.... so it was a comparatively huge advance in capacity and capability for volume of fire... it reduced effective range of its full rifle contemporaries, but.... with 5.45 they got a fraction of that range back at a lower price point while essentially still getting the same job done.

back then the russians were always about quantity and with 5.45 they got the same quantity at a lower price, i still think cost was a huge factor when you are talking about implementing it across 2.4 million service members... or more, some folks think that the high end estimates were essentially made up by American war hawks during the cold war, but some estimates ranged up to over 5 million service members.
The Following User Says Thank You to mefunkymxw For This Useful Post:
Old 04-21-2017, 02:28 PM
ehryk ehryk is offline
Alea iacta est, III
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wherever the Army sends me
Posts: 544
Thanks: 974
Thanked 789 Times in 270 Posts
Default

none of the LBDs I shot have ever complained that the 5.56 was ineffective. Just sayin.
Old 04-21-2017, 04:44 PM
mefunkymxw's Avatar
mefunkymxw mefunkymxw is offline
that's like, your opinion
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Virginia
Age: 35
Posts: 17,401
Thanks: 10,827
Thanked 23,734 Times in 9,810 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ehryk View Post
none of the LBDs I shot have ever complained that the 5.56 was ineffective. Just sayin.
and none of the college students that got shot at virginia tech in 2007 with a 22lr or 9x19 complained it was ineffective either... all firearm projectiles can kill...

its just that some calibers are suited to specific scenarios more then others. some folks are at the mercy of government acquisitions for what they shoot, and others that operate in the free market have some additional choices.

i reload and shoot a decent amount of 5.56 since its so cost effective (i got down to about 12 cents per round), but its just not my go to when i have other options, and i have a few other options.

just so happens that these are all my options, try to choose the right one for the job:

Click image for larger version

Name:	P1010207.jpg
Views:	13
Size:	59.7 KB
ID:	203642
Old 04-21-2017, 04:57 PM
AK103K's Avatar
AK103K AK103K is offline
Immer Im Einsatz
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: In the shadow of the Shade
Posts: 2,246
Thanks: 1,372
Thanked 2,810 Times in 1,284 Posts
Default

Ive shot small critters with both the 9mm and .22lr, and some were impressed with the first shot, and others werent, and needed more to be impressed.

Ive shot a bunch of small critters with a .223 as well, and every one was instantly impressed, mainly because they instantly turned into meat grenades and were generally blown into pieces.

Ive shot bigger things with all three as well, and with basically the same results. The bigger things just dont tend to explode like the smaller things do.

Sure, every caliber can kill (with proper placement), some just do it more effectively, and with more damage, which tends to help with the effectiveness.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AK103K For This Useful Post:
Old 04-21-2017, 05:01 PM
mefunkymxw's Avatar
mefunkymxw mefunkymxw is offline
that's like, your opinion
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Virginia
Age: 35
Posts: 17,401
Thanks: 10,827
Thanked 23,734 Times in 9,810 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK103K View Post
Ive shot small critters with both the 9mm and .22lr, and some were impressed with the first shot, and others werent, and needed more to be impressed.

Ive shot a bunch of small critters with a .223 as well, and every one was instantly impressed, mainly because they instantly turned into meat grenades and were generally blown into pieces.

Ive shot bigger things with all three as well, and with basically the same results. The bigger things just dont tend to explode like the smaller things do.

Sure, every caliber can kill (with proper placement), some just do it more effectively, and with more damage, which tends to help with the effectiveness.
exactly, and there are options out there with more kinetic energy and thus more to transfer into a target then 5.56...
Old 04-22-2017, 01:09 AM
justin22885 justin22885 is online now
Awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,087
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7,344 Times in 2,724 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mefunkymxw View Post
and how long does it take for some poisons to kill???

getting wounded by the 5.45 provided the medical conditions in afghanistan/pakistan back in the 70s/80s is probably about as bad as getting stabbed by a bayonet in the civil war.... you might survive the initial wound, but you will almost certainly die from slow hemorrhage or the infection.

what did they call the 30 cal stuff used previously "the killer bullet"????

look both 5.45 and 7.62 will kill... sometimes 5.45 will tumble, sometimes it wont, sometimes 7.62x39 will tumble if it hits a bone, other times it wont... alot of factors, and you may never replicate the terminal ballistics of one shot compared to another....

you know what is constant.... you can make a 5.45 round for cheaper then 7.62
M43 ammo tended to pass through and do little damage, M67 style was designed to tumble with a hollow nose cavity and cause massive wound cavities almost on impact.. but when a bullet tumbles more of the wound cavity is going to be determined by the bullet length, not its width and the bullet length of a 7N6 round is about the same as an M67 round so the wound cavity is pretty close to the same size, but the 5.45 offered more range, more precision, and lighter ammo, theres virtually no downside to it from a military standpoint.. theres far more to it than costs
Old 04-22-2017, 01:12 AM
justin22885 justin22885 is online now
Awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,087
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7,344 Times in 2,724 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mefunkymxw View Post
exactly, and there are options out there with more kinetic energy and thus more to transfer into a target then 5.56...
just because a round has more energy does not mean its going to transfer more, for example a 308 has 2.5x+ the energy of a 5.56 round, it has tons of energy but when an FMJ round passes straight through without tumbling its not going to transfer or dump all that much energy, bigger does not always mean better
Old 04-22-2017, 02:12 AM
rc508abn's Avatar
rc508abn rc508abn is online now
Paratrooper X
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Oklahoma
Age: 49
Posts: 2,684
Thanks: 609
Thanked 2,084 Times in 1,195 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by justin22885 View Post
just because a round has more energy does not mean its going to transfer more, for example a 308 has 2.5x+ the energy of a 5.56 round, it has tons of energy but when an FMJ round passes straight through without tumbling its not going to transfer or dump all that much energy, bigger does not always mean better
Yeah, energy transfer means very little, It creates the secondary wound cavity witch is nothing more than stretched, bruised tissue. For rounds that tumble, when the bullet is perpendicular to the flight path is when its larger surface creates more damage. It acts like a soft point. Exactly what M67 and 7n6 does.

People see gel tests and think that the shredding of the gel is what happens in the body and its not. Your guts expand and move out of the way, then snap back. Any tissue that is damaged begins swelling almost immediately. That swelling seals up blood leaks pretty good too
Old 04-22-2017, 02:25 AM
Unobtanium's Avatar
Unobtanium Unobtanium is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NW,AR
Age: 31
Posts: 8,920
Thanks: 3,363
Thanked 7,642 Times in 3,856 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rc508abn View Post
Yeah, energy transfer means very little, It creates the secondary wound cavity witch is nothing more than stretched, bruised tissue. For rounds that tumble, when the bullet is perpendicular to the flight path is when its larger surface creates more damage. It acts like a soft point. Exactly what M67 and 7n6 does.

People see gel tests and think that the shredding of the gel is what happens in the body and its not. Your guts expand and move out of the way, then snap back. Any tissue that is damaged begins swelling almost immediately. That swelling seals up blood leaks pretty good too
At rifle velocities, tsc is a wounding mechanism.
Old 04-22-2017, 08:42 AM
Rural Buckeye Guy Rural Buckeye Guy is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: rural ohio
Posts: 320
Thanks: 40
Thanked 344 Times in 161 Posts
Default

The real proof is in whether the doubter will take a .556 round themselves and where....everything else is opinion masturbation, combat vet or not. BTW, NO DISRESPECT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SACRIFICE.
The Following User Says Thank You to Rural Buckeye Guy For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net