Why you do not want to get shot with an M16...Warning: Disturbing photograph linked

[Steve Janes]

I disagree that that's FMJ Ball. I've shot beavers and yotes and myriad other animals with ball. It's in and out. Hydrostatic shock is minimal with FMJ. That's the point and why it's used, to minimize trauma. That was the point of countries agreeing to ball ammo use.

As well, typically police do not use ball. Police ammo is generally high fragmentation, high shock ammo designed to incapacitate and stop the threat right now. That's what I see here. I'm gonna depart from the agreed consensus and believe the reporting party got it wrong or got fed a line by the police to contain public discourse. Like when the "evil Black Talon" ammo got taken off the market because of public outcry because this, in these pictures, was what it was designed to do.

My thoughts. Agree or not but its what I see.

Ummmmm......ok, you are entitled to your opinion, but I wonder if you've seen some of the other evidence out there regarding M193

Literally type in this exact phrase "M193 WOUND" on google, and then click images.

There are numerous pictures out there of what a 55gr FMJ M193 round will do. Why debate it when there a numerous similar photos depicting similar wounds purportedly caused by the same M193 Round. This thread includes more doctor talk, IN ENGLISH, and also some follow up pictures from a month or so later http://forums.second-amendment.org/index.php?topic=4520.0

Here's another M193 Leg wound thread, this one was in the lower leg, scroll down to 3/4 from the bottom of the pagehttp://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=31666&page=5

Here's an arm 5.56 FMJ forearm wound, Scroll down about half way through the page, apparently they did not confirm it was m193 or even that it was 55gr, but they did say it was 5.56FMJ ammo http://www.zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=109&t=84194

Just out of curiosity, where is it legal to hunt Beaver and Coyote with FMJ anything? Here in BC you cannot hunt with FMJ period

 

[harbl_the_cat]

I disagree that that's FMJ Ball. I've shot beavers and yotes and myriad other animals with ball. It's in and out. Hydrostatic shock is minimal with FMJ. That's the point and why it's used, to minimize trauma. That was the point of countries agreeing to ball ammo use.

As well, typically police do not use ball. Police ammo is generally high fragmentation, high shock ammo designed to incapacitate and stop the threat right now. That's what I see here. I'm gonna depart from the agreed consensus and believe the reporting party got it wrong or got fed a line by the police to contain public discourse. Like when the "evil Black Talon" ammo got taken off the market because of public outcry because this, in these pictures, was what it was designed to do.

My thoughts. Agree or not but its what I see.

Try to remember, the OP was in the Philippines.

It's pretty much the wild west out there, so what LE and military do over there probably isn't even close to what they do here, Again I'm no expert, but I'm assuming over there, they have much more finite budgets than our law enforcement and military units do here, so they have to be much more cost effective in what they do.

If the OP said it was M193 5.56 ball, I'd believe him. That stuff is much cheaper than SS109, M855, and most certainly most expanding ammunition.

 

[tootall]

I'm staying out of the Norinco good/bad issue because it is not relevant, and I'm not going to comment on the medical/hydrostatic shock issue because I've never been in combat, so havent seen 5.56mm FMJ wounds up close.

I will point out that no-one has yet commented on barrel length and related velocity.
The first post here, and from the Filipino thread mentioned that it was a 20" barrel at close range.

"Estimated range was between 5-10 meters. 20"-barreled M16A1 used. At that range, estimated velocity when bullet hit was @ 3200 feet per second."

Something to consider, when comparing rounds fired from 10" CQB guns.

 

[loki_81]

Norinco? Well in that case everyone knows that it'll fragment prior to leaving your barrel .... .

I don't quite follow???

Sorry, I thought the smilies at the end would show I was joking. Completely irrelevant to the thread, moving along.

Brutal wound.

 

[tjhaile]

I disagree that that's FMJ Ball. I've shot beavers and yotes and myriad other animals with ball. It's in and out. Hydrostatic shock is minimal with FMJ. That's the point and why it's used, to minimize trauma. That was the point of countries agreeing to ball ammo use.

As well, typically police do not use ball. Police ammo is generally high fragmentation, high shock ammo designed to incapacitate and stop the threat right now. That's what I see here. I'm gonna depart from the agreed consensus and believe the reporting party got it wrong or got fed a line by the police to contain public discourse. Like when the "evil Black Talon" ammo got taken off the market because of public outcry because this, in these pictures, was what it was designed to do.

My thoughts. Agree or not but its what I see.

1. The FMJ bullets you used may not have been identical to those used to load M193 ammunition.
2. M193 ball is known to fragment, though this mechanism is inconsistent. Depending on whether the bullet fragments or not, the wound can be either devastating or comparable to a .22 LR.
3. As Harbl mentioned, hand-me-down equipment from US military aid is the norm due to budget constraints.

 

[RRCo.]

The 2006 study by the Joint Service Wound Ballistics – Integrated Product Team discovered that the ideal caliber seems to be between 6.5 and 7-mm. This was also the general conclusion of all military ballistics studies since the end of World War I.

Effective fire out to 500m? What a concept! The Enfield rifled musket was effective to 600 yards plus in the Crimean War.

"Round, round, we go, round, round we go".

So why did we go to .223 again? So we could carry more ammo.
Why do we need to carry more ammo? Because we have semi-automatic rifles
Why do we have semi-automatic rifles? So we can fire more rounds, faster
Why do we have to fire more rounds, faster? Because if we can't aim, we fire more and hope some hit the target

But what if we aim and fire one bullet which hits the target?

Then it really doesn't matter what kind of rifle we have, but it does matter what kind of bullet we have.

So .223 will blow your leg to hell at close range? Great, so will .577-450 and just about every other calibre.

But if I'm behind a cinder block or adobe wall, or a tree. Will .223 make it through the obstacle and incapacitate the target? Not likely.

Will 7.62x39? According the USMC study that was been linked on this forum before, it will.

 

[GunGuy34]

Tagged.

 

[Juster]

I do think you misunderstood the guy though. What i think he meant was that there is a common misconception that 5.56 was designed to "Severely Wound" an enemy and be less likely to inflict a fatal wound. The idea behind this was that it would take 2-3 guys to carry the wounded man from the field, hence removing anywhere from 2-3 enemy from the battle, albeit only temporarily.

Most antipersonnel mines are designed to do what you describe by using a small charge, maybe 30g. Placement is everything here, we assume the enemy will be walking on their feet. You cannot do this with firearms, they hit where they hit.

To suggest that you can design a round that will seriously wound but not kill is ridiculous. It is like the gun control notion that there and Bad Evil Guns that kill babies and Harmless Hunting Guns.

 

[Steve Janes]

Most antipersonnel mines are designed to do what you describe by using a small charge, maybe 30g. Placement is everything here, we assume the enemy will be walking on their feet. You cannot do this with firearms, they hit where they hit.

To suggest that you can design a round that will seriously wound but not kill is ridiculous. It is like the gun control notion that there and Bad Evil Guns that kill babies and Harmless Hunting Guns.

Hence why I refereed to it as a common misconception, IE Bullspit......Sheeesh

 

[CreamySmooth]

To suggest that you can design a round that will seriously wound but not kill is ridiculous. It is like the gun control notion that there and Bad Evil Guns that kill babies and Harmless Hunting Guns.

Agreed, you can't. But as I said, FMJ or Ball ammo was agreed upon at the Hague peace convention of 1899 (Further ratified at the Geneva Conventions as well) so as to limit the use of expanding projectiles. The main reasoning was to reduce pain and suffering, decrease the number of deceased and, unofficially and unstated, use up resources providing medical aid and treatment. You don't have to seriously wound. Any wound will remove a soldier from continued fighting for some time period. Non-FMJ's cause a horrible wound no matter where they strike, and as the wound in this story, if caused in war, the soldier will probably bleed out. I personally have too much experience with gunshot wounds, having seen well into the double digits. FMJ's, even in the head, leave small exit wounds, even when they cause lots of internal trauma. Soft points cause what I personally see in the above photo. Not an easy thing for myself to admit to seeing actually....

Apart from that, I do know that all ball ammo, in fact all ammo, is yawing to some degree out to approx. several dozen yards from the firearm before it stabilizes. So if this shot is at close range the bullet may have been yawing already, and much more capable of causing more damage itself. However, if it is yawing, it's frangibility is moot, as this requires a stable, rotating bullet and a hit from far enough away that it has stabilized. Another useless point to this conversation is that 5.56 FMJ does not fragment under 2500fps. It's going too slow, but that doesn't matter here.

The reasons I disagree is that if they did pick pieces of metal out then I do not believe this was a FMJ bullet of any type. And then just personal experience, mostly. It's not to say I know I'm right, but I'll go with what I know.

As for Steve Janes suggestion that I'm poaching (that's how I take it now, if not why ask it twice?? Once publicly here and once in a private message I answered politely??). I was not hunting, I was controlling varmint on private land that was harassing wildlife, and destroying nuisance/varmint animals flooding productive farmland. Next week, I'm going to blow up their homes. I'm sorry if you are sensitive for some reason, but you are in BC, so you don't have to worry about these things that we rednecks do to provide you with beef and bread.... If I'm taking it wrong I apologize in advance....

Again, just my thoughts, provided as a point of view.

 

[J996]

But if I'm behind a cinder block or adobe wall, or a tree. Will .223 make it through the obstacle and incapacitate the target? Not likely.
.

I used to think that also but recently found out as far as trees go, at 300 yards .223 went clean through thick BC timber without breaking up, very clean little exit hole. I was very surprised. Now at close range my guess is it would break up inside the tree, but at that range it has slowed down some. I was using 55FMJ 20"barrel 1:10 Twist.
If anyone is interested I did take pictures and can dig them up.

As far as the wound goes, if they still have old M16's with the 1:12 twist, the combination of that rifle and M193 was producing horrific wounds back in Vietnam because it made the bullet more unstable. There were reports of it taking arms off.

 

[Steve Janes]

As for Steve Janes suggestion that I'm poaching (that's how I take it now, if not why ask it twice?? Once publicly here and once in a private message I answered politely??). I was not hunting, I was controlling varmint on private land that was harassing wildlife, and destroying nuisance/varmint animals flooding productive farmland. Next week, I'm going to blow up their homes. I'm sorry if you are sensitive for some reason, but you are in BC, so you don't have to worry about these things that we rednecks do to provide you with beef and bread.... If I'm taking it wrong I apologize in advance....

Dude, chill the hell out, I never said you were poaching, I never even suggested it, quote me if i did, I asked you a polite and curious question and when you didn't respond on the thread I sent you a PM to get a quicker response, you then answered with a completely reasonable and satisfying response, I polity said thank you at the end of my msg as well.

Simply put, RELAX

 

[Kevin M.]

Lots of photo proof of why I treat guns with extreme respect.

 

[GunGuy34]

Photos in link, along with some fascinating information about .223/5.56 ballistics in human tissue.

Sounds like a police officer in Philippines accidentally shot him (details unclear). Evidently the surgeon who patched the guy up posted details about it (prairiefire). Victim kept his leg - which is pretty astonishing from the photos. He has some really interesting incites about the kind of damage to living tissue various kinds of ammunition does.

Simply put - I sure wouldn't want to get hit with a M193 5.56 at 20 yards from an M16 with a 20" barrel.

Description of photos: man in hospital geurney with entry and exit wounds to his thigh along with X-rays of the damage.

Very graphic - not recommended viewing at work or in front of squeamish.

timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=17111.0

I keep pondering that for modern military applications since it's inception and acceptance as the NATO standard, it sounds like 5.56 is extremely devastating within 100 yards, given the amount of damage it does on account that it both yaws AND fragments. Conversely, the M43 7.62x39 round (the stuff all of us stockpile) doesn't tend to yaw or fragment at close range, tends to pencil through human tissue.

Well if thats from a .223, then its pretty clear a .50bmg would blow you in half.

 

[infidel29]

Wonder what a .338 lapua would do?

the videogame world has a word for that. Gibs.....as in bloody meat chunks everywhere

 

[infidel29]

I'm staying out of the Norinco good/bad issue because it is not relevant, and I'm not going to comment on the medical/hydrostatic shock issue because I've never been in combat, so havent seen 5.56mm FMJ wounds up close.

I will point out that no-one has yet commented on barrel length and related velocity.
The first post here, and from the Filipino thread mentioned that it was a 20" barrel at close range.

"Estimated range was between 5-10 meters. 20"-barreled M16A1 used. At that range, estimated velocity when bullet hit was @ 3200 feet per second."

Something to consider, when comparing rounds fired from 10" CQB guns.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Travis Bickle]

That is post surgery images.

When the 5.56mm projectile velocity drops below a certain speed it usually fails to fragment.

The velocity is usually high enough within the first 100-150 meters to cause the projectile to fragment if being fired from a full length barrel.

There are also numerous field reports from US Military members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan where enemy were found to be hit numerous times in the torso around the heart etc with 5.56mm and still kept coming even managing to kill US members after being hit numerous times:

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

Not so black and white an issue is the lethality of the cartridge. I still wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of it either way lol

 

[762shooter]

Photos in link, along with some fascinating information about .223/5.56 ballistics in human tissue.

Sounds like a police officer in Philippines accidentally shot him (details unclear). Evidently the surgeon who patched the guy up posted details about it (prairiefire). Victim kept his leg - which is pretty astonishing from the photos. He has some really interesting incites about the kind of damage to living tissue various kinds of ammunition does.

Simply put - I sure wouldn't want to get hit with a M193 5.56 at 20 yards from an M16 with a 20" barrel.

Description of photos: man in hospital geurney with entry and exit wounds to his thigh along with X-rays of the damage.

Very graphic - not recommended viewing at work or in front of squeamish.

timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=17111.0

I keep pondering that for modern military applications since it's inception and acceptance as the NATO standard, it sounds like 5.56 is extremely devastating within 100 yards, given the amount of damage it does on account that it both yaws AND fragments. Conversely, the M43 7.62x39 round (the stuff all of us stockpile) doesn't tend to yaw or fragment at close range, tends to pencil through human tissue.

I have to wonder if this is what we have to look forward to when the RCMP put a C8 in every pc. ;-)

 

[cancer]

This is why I wear level 3 plates at the range. If I wear hard hat and boots on the work site, I wear plates at the range. Accidents happen and I don't need a bloated out chest cavity full of spall.

 

[brandneo]

It's a bad wound, however, does anyone want to get hit by any bullet? I personally wouldn't enjoy a .22 either. Getting hit by a Honda at 60mph will probably produce the same results as getting hit by a Denali, I still prefer neither.