Perfect Union banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
623 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Youtube and the net in general have been scrubbed on all info about the lethality of the 5.56.

The massive cavitation the 5.56 causes and the hyperstatic shock and tissue damage the 5.56 causes on the cellular level.



Seems big brother does not want the people to be well armed at all, and is hell bent on forcing people to use sub par ammo.
 

·
Odd Pachyderm thingy
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
Youtube and the net in general have been scrubbed on all info about the lethality of the 5.56.

The massive cavitation the 5.56 causes and the hyperstatic shock and tissue damage the 5.56 causes on the cellular level.

Seems big brother does not want the people to be well armed at all, and is hell bent on forcing people to use sub par ammo.
ummm...

what have you been smokin? :rolleyes:

Dr. Fackler's articles on terminal ballistics are all over the place on the 'net. contained therein you will find info on how 5.56mm does when it hits flesh.

it does NOT... repeat does NOT "do damage on a cellular level" what it does do is under some circumstances and certain bullet constructions (provided impact velocity is high enough) is yaw violently, and fracture at the cannalure creating a wound way out of proportion to the starting diameter of the bullet.

Hydrostatic shock is simply a theory which was very en vogue back in the 80's but has fallen out of favor in the last decade.

this wounding potential of the 5.56 is most important to the military - where only FMJ is allowed.
for us civilians - using an expanding bullet (SP, or HP designs) trumps the iffy proposition of getting the yaw and fragment effect that M193 5.56 is known for inside it's most effective range. in the civilian world both 7.62x39 and .223 in a expanding bullet design will perform well on unarmored human targets - with HP or SP x39 creating a wound pretty comparable to 30.30 - which can make a nasty mess... and with a well designed bullet - the .223 RELIABLY doing the yaw and frag dance out to 300 yards

but... many of us rely on the less expensive milsurp ammo for our "emergency" stash - since one can stockpile a thousand rounds of milsurp to a few hundred civilian premium rounds for the same cost. this being said... if ONLY limited to FMJ milspec designs. I'll take the M193 5.56 any day

when comparing military ammo (not civilian premium ammo)
5.56 M193 has a tendency to cause more damage at close range than 7.62x39 M43 - because the bullet yaws, frags, and makes a general mess with detached muscle tissue and multiple bullet fragments and wound channels.

the russian round will yaw, and punch straight through - rarely fragging. AK wounds are generally very bloody but clean through and throughs that unless they hit something vital directly - or medical attention is not available in a timely manner they heal quickly and are comparatively easy for a surgeon to repair.

however at longer ranges - the 5.56's wounding potential drops off allot.
but the x39 round maintains the same level of performance.

but again this is anecdotal evidence - based on primarily battlefield casualties. using MILSPEC ammo.

both rounds perform admirably in civilian hands when using an expanding bullet design.

"big brother" isn't "scrubbing" the 'net of information on
5.56x45mm ammo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
It'd be basically impossible to "scrub the internet." Just fyi.

A worm big enough to delete info on the public and private servers, as well as the caches of everyone who ever accessed the page, would DEFINITELY be noticed.

these are the people who couldn't sneak into a hotel room mind you. Lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,423 Posts
Let's see now.... I find out on the internet that the internet has been scrubbed... but the message telling me the internet has been scrubbed hasn't been scrubbed from the internet. Does anyone else see an endless loop forming here??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,503 Posts
Let's see now.... I find out on the internet that the internet has been scrubbed... but the message telling me the internet has been scrubbed hasn't been scrubbed from the internet. Does anyone else see an endless loop forming here??
That's what you're "supposed" to think. :rolleyes: ;)
 

·
Odd Pachyderm thingy
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
Ballistic Gelatin provides a good example of the destructive force of "hydrostatic shock."

Here is one on the .223 Remington in ballistic gelatin
Physicians now seem to think the temporary cavitation seen in ballistic gel testing and battlefield wounds is less of a factor due to the fact that most human tissue (other than brain tissue of course) is far more elastic than originally thought, and the pressure waves seen in the temporary cavity are transmitting less kinetic energy than it appears.

I'm not saying Hydrostatic shock is bunk - I'm just saying that research in the last decade seems to downplay the Hydrostatic shock theory in favor of the crushing/masticating of tissue by direct bullet impact. UNLESS impact velocities are at 3000fps +/- (nearly muzzle velocity for most .223 loads) in this case the hydraulic pressure wave has been known to break bones outside the permanent wound track. but this is an exception rather than the rule -and it's not a 100% chance of this happening. check the 'net - there is a pretty nasty example of a through and through with a M16A1 M193 wound to the thigh that broke the femur and made a pretty nasty mess. This poor bastard: Why you do not want to get shot with an M16...(Warning: Disturbing photograph)

also - the reason why .223 Remington delivers such nasty on target damage at close range is due to the unusually big/messy wound (for what is a glorified .22) isn't the temporary cavity, but the permanent cavity that a violently yawing, high speed spitzer bullet makes when it fractures and creates additional wound tracks.
the mess you see in the video after the bullet has stopped has nothing to do with the temporary cavity made due to hydraulic compression of the gel as the bullet passes through (the tissue returns to near normal state, with the exception of whatever was directly torn up by the bullet pretty quickly) but the permanent wound track.

I also suspect that the gel used in the vid you posted is a pretty light blend.
 

·
Odd Pachyderm thingy
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
That bullet goes anywhere near the lungs and they are mush.
it's pretty common for soldiers that receive a pneumothoratic high powered rifle wound to survive the ordeal with medical attention.
the lung isn't "turned to mush" as you so eloquently put it.
since lung tissue contains allot of air - it doesn't act the same as other organ or muscle tissue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
the lung isn't "turned to mush" as you so eloquently put it.
I have seen it myself. With 357s and 30-30s. HUGE wound cavity with a 30-30, 10 times the bullet size, whereas the bullet doesn't get 50% larger than originally.

The last deer I killed with the 357, large areas of the lungs near the bullets path were pudding; and that is a subsonic round.

Most hunters know this firsthand; haven't you ever examined a kill to see the damage done?
 

·
Odd Pachyderm thingy
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
I have seen it myself. With 357s and 30-30s. HUGE wound cavity with a 30-30, 10 times the bullet size, whereas the bullet doesn't get 50% larger than originally.

The last deer I killed with the 357, large areas of the lungs near the bullets path were pudding; and that is a subsonic round.

Most hunters know this firsthand; haven't you ever examined a kill to see the damage done?
ummm, yeah...

both in humans and animals.

I'm not debating that a high powered bullet striking a target isn't a nasty proposition. what I'm debating is the so called Hydrostatic shock theory.

what you are seeing in the lung in this case isn't destroyed tissue - its blood that has been pulled into the collapsed lung. it looks like mushy pudding - but what it is is blood pulled into the alveolar sacs and cartilaginous passages between them. it looks like a mess - beacuse the animal is dead and the blood has pooled,and no medical attention was given (of course not... you were trying to kill it... :lol: )
if one were to shoot a deer in the lung - and immediately catch it (unlikely :lol: as lung hit game has a tendancy to run till it bleeds out into the chest cavity... which is where the "pudding" comes from) and perform the first aid procedure for a penetrating Pneumothoraic injury (read up on how to deal with a "sucking chest wound" ) and then rush said critter to a veterinary surgeon. providing no other major blood vessels or organs were hit, the animal would likely survive and the lung could be saved - (with some scarring and impairment of course)

the huge wound cavity you describe is part of the "permanent wound cavity"
that the bullet carves up. 30.30 is well known to create a nasty internal wound. any damage within a 3-4" cylinder around the bullet fired from a high powered rifle can be considered "direct impact" and these effects are well known to hunters and ME. that isn't what so called "Hydrostatic shock" is.
what you are seeing in these large wound cavities is stretched, displaced and severely bruised tissue that if the target survives... will heal. And if the target dies? before it gets a chance to heal and close up, well.... it looks like tenderized meat and goo.

the hydrostatic shock theory is the "remote wounding effect" that some say happens when hit by a high velocity projectile. and the compression waves within the (mostly) liquid environment of a living organism and the effect of these waves on organs and bodily structures

Ie: you strike a target in the shoulder, and the target drops dead right there with a C spine injury due to a crushed/damaged cervical vertebrae

or... a man shot in the bicep with a high powered bullet is rendered temporarily unconscious by compression damage to the brachial plexus in the clavicle area

or yet again...

a man shot once in the lung with a .223 drops dead right there. he is later opened up on the table and found to have actually died of hemorrhage within the brain.

flukes like the above are things that some say are "proof" that the remote wounding effects of hydrostatic shock are common and real.

most of the "One shot stops" are attributed to shock:

Shock (circulatory) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but this type of shock has nothing to do with bullet specific injury.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
726 Posts
Mr. Snuffalupagus good stuff, all of it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
any damage within a 3-4" cylinder around the bullet fired from a high powered rifle can be considered "direct impact" and these effects are well known to hunters and ME. that isn't what so called "Hydrostatic shock" is.
The '3-4" cylinder' is caused by the hydrostatic shock-wave. That you do not attribute that damage to any other force, but simply 'consider[]' it '"direct impact"'; makes my case.
But you want to keep your argument alive; therefore, you argue against the magical "remote wounding effect" that I am clearly not arguing.

You've lost the argument; and no circle-jerking of your friends will change that.
 

·
Odd Pachyderm thingy
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
The '3-4" cylinder' is caused by the hydrostatic shock-wave. That you do not attribute that damage to any other force, but simply 'consider[]' it '"direct impact"'; makes my case.
But you want to keep your argument alive; therefore, you argue against the magical "remote wounding effect" that I am clearly not arguing.

You've lost the argument; and no circle-jerking of your friends will change that.
dude relax,

why get your panties in a wad over a thread on the 'net?
you are bordering on insulting folks you don't even know over an issue of semantics.

the theory of "hydrostatic shock" as touted by "experts" revolves around the highly dubious "remote wounding effect" and the idea that the hydraulic compression waves (that definitely exist and are a factor in a high velocity bullet impact) travel throughout the body and have damaging systemic effects far from the impact of the bullet.

So lets not go around to referring to "Hydrostatic shock" when speaking of the localized hydraulic compression of tissues in a gunshot wound. (more on why this is important later)

the 3-4" cylinder of damaged tissue around the bullet entry wound is direct pulverization and bruising due to the entrance of the high velocity missile and Localized hydraulic compression and tissue tearing/stretch - not the effect of so called "hydrostatic shock."

while hydraulic compression of the tissues in the IMMEDIATE VICINITY of the bullet wound play a major role in the mechanics of injury - this is NOT "hydrostatic shock" as proposed in theory.

Dubious theories like "hydrostatic shock" are dangerous - especially if misinformed folks like the original poster in this thread run around spouting off about how "deadly" .223 is because it "causes Hydrostatic shock" and "does damage on a cellular level"

bunk like this has a direct effect on those who would deny us the right to own and bear arms and ammunition of military grade. These anti gun fools tend to go and look up terms like "hydrostatic shock" and then faint dead away and call for bans when they see wild claims like: people getting shot in the arm and dropping dead of a C spine injury!

so dude... please relax
yes - YOU ARE CORRECT - Hydraulic compression is a mechanism of injury in a gunshot wound -but not to the extent that the theory of "hydrostatic shock" would lead someone to believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
623 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Oh when I started getting into rifles I saw a lot of info vids on youtube about the damage the 5.56 round does, and they are gone now.

I really think LE guys do not want to be facing any 5.56 in the field and they are trying to get thugs to use 7.62 so they can be safe during engagements.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
Oh when I started getting into rifles I saw a lot of info vids on youtube about the damage the 5.56 round does, and they are gone now.

I really think LE guys do not want to be facing any 5.56 in the field and they are trying to get thugs to use 7.62 so they can be safe during engagements.
Are you out of your effing mind? I own both an AR and a M1A and given the same type of bullet ( i.e. both soft points or both hollowpoints etc.) 7.62 always does more damage.
edited to add: and by the way 7.62 out penetrates cover by far over 5.56 so I highly doubt LE wants thugs using rounds that easily penetrate most cover. 5.56 won't penetrate a tree you take cover behind M80 ball does so easily even at distance.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top