Article Archive: Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Weapons: Twisting, Tumbling And Knocking Them Down
   Next Article → MURPHY'S LAW: The Mythical Mister Clean

August 12, 2009: Ever since the Vietnam war, there has been an ongoing debate over the stopping power of the 5.56mm round used in the M-16 assault rifle. Some of the same complaints, and arguments, have been revived recently as a result of the heavy combat that's taken place in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was the first time, since Vietnam, that the 5.56mm round has seen a lot of action.

During the Vietnam war, there were reports of enemy troops not going down when hit with a 5.56mm bullet, while troops using rifles with the larger 7.62mm round reported far fewer such problems. Keep in mind that many of the NCOs in Vietnam had fought in Korea and World War II, using the M-1 rifle (and it's 7.62mm, or .30 caliber, round) and had lots of opportunity to compare the "stopping power" of the two different bullets. But there was also a lot of support for the lighter M-16, with its lighter (especially to carry) ammo and flatter trajectory (because of its higher speed). The Vietnam war ended without any pressure building to go back to a larger cartridge. While some veterans believed a larger bullet was needed, most were content with the M-16.

On paper, one measure of "stopping power" is the joules (or foot pounds, where 1000 joules equals 737.6 foot pounds) a bullet transfers to whatever it hits. Joules is a measure of energy (the weight of the bullet times the velocity as it comes out of the barrel.) On the low end, we have the .22 caliber long rifle, with 190 joules of hitting power. This is enough to snag squirrels and rabbits. A .22 can kill people, but only if they are hit in the right place. For serious killing, the most widely used rounds up through World War II were the 7.92mm (4670 joules), the .303 caliber (or 7.7mm with 3320 joules), the .30-06 (7.62mm with 3660 joules), 6.5mm (various models, 2300-2700 joules) and .30 caliber US Carbine (1070 joules). That period also saw widespread use of submachineguns (automatic weapons using pistol rounds.) The most widely used of these were the 9mm Parabellum (583 joules), 7.62mm Tokarev (499 joules) and .45 ACP (11.4mm with 450 joules). After World War II came two new cartridges that have dominated military rifle use, the Russian 7.62mm M1943 (1890 joules) and the 5.56mm (1780 joules).

But there's a major problem in just using joules, and that is how much of that energy is actually applied to the person being hit. A smaller, faster bullet has a tendency to just go through someone. This does damage, often fatal damage, but if often does not slow down a highly energized soldier. A larger bullet, especially a blunt one, will be more effective at "stopping" someone. Thus the popularity of the U.S. .45 caliber pistol round. Although it has less energy than the 9mm round (450 joules compared to 583), those who have used both insist that the .45 is far more effective than the smaller and faster 9mm. Part of this has to do with the fact that the .45 (11.4mm) bullet hits with a 60 percent larger (as seen head on) area, thus it applied more of that energy to the target. This explains the greater likelihood of the .45 caliber bullet "knocking down" whoever it hits. The same physics applies to rifle bullets (although they tend to have pointy tips, unlike the blunter ones for pistol pullets.) A 7.62mm bullet is 88 percent larger (head on) than a 5.56mm one.

But the 5.56mm bullet has one considerable advantage; cavitation. At higher speeds, like those the 5.56mm round employs, causes more flesh to be displaced as the bullet enters a body. Compared to a heavier, slower moving traditional (7.62mm or .30 caliber) round, the 5.56mm round not only displaces more flesh, but begins to tumble, which further increases the internal damage. Without seeing the bullet, a military surgeon can immediately tell which type of bullet did the damage. These doctors will tell you that a 5.56mm round, on average, does a lot more damage. Especially at closer ranges (under 500 meters.) And it was worse with the earlier models of the M-16. These had rifling that imparted a slower spin to the bullet, this meant that the round was even more unstable when it entered the human body. But the slower spin made the bullet less accurate at longer ranges, so the rifling was changed, gradually, from 1:12 (the bullet rotated once every 12 inches) to 1:7. It was found that the damage to enemy troops was still sufficient, and accuracy at ranges over a few hundred meters was much better. Note, however, that at longer ranges, the 5.56mm round slowed down to speeds closer to those of the heavier 7.62mm round, and this greatly reduced the cavitation and tumbling effect. Thus at longer ranges, you had more instances of enemy soldiers taking several hits without going down. But at more typical combat ranges (under a hundred meters), the damage from one 5.56mm bullet is substantial. However, it's also possible for a 5.56mm bullet to hit somewhere (side of the arm or leg, or chest) and go though insufficient flesh to do much cavitation, much less tumble. The shooter would note the target jerking a bit, but continuing to advance. Thus would be born another first hand witness to the "ineffective 5.56mm."

At the moment, the round with the most stopping power (on paper and witnessed in action) is the .50 caliber (12.7mm) round used in heavy sniper rifles and heavy machine-guns. This bullet generates 16,914 joules. Guaranteed to stop anyone, or just about anything, it hits. In combat, overkill is good.

Much experimentation has taken place to develop the "perfect bullet" and at present it appears to be something between 6mm and 7mm. But the only time you get to see what really works is when there is a war. But even then a lot depends on where you are fighting, and who you are fighting with. If combat is in the wide open spaces, the fast, light 5.56mm rounds are at a disadvantage. But in jungles and cities, the 5.56mm is very effective. If you are fighting fanatical type opponents (like the Japanese in World War II, or Islamic radicals today), you want as many joules as possible, on bullet designed to stay in the target.

The joules do count. In the Pacific during World War II,  the lightweight U.S. .30 caliber carbine (using what was basically a pistol cartridge) got its bad reputation. The bullet fired from the carbine only had 1070 joules, less than a third of the joules generated by the more powerful .30-06 of the M1 Garand rifle. In Europe, where most combatants were only too happy to get wounded and evacuated to the rear, a hit from carbine bullet would drop most people. But if you are really determined, getting hit by a carbine bullet is often just an annoyance. But the 5.56mm round changed that. While small, it was fast, and designed to tear you up inside. That's more than just annoying.

So which kind of round is best? Well, it really depends. But there are more combat veterans swearing by the 5.56mm, than swearing at it.

Next Article → MURPHY'S LAW: The Mythical Mister Clean
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Bob Cortez       8/12/2009 7:37:18 AM
My late father was a gun sargeant in Europe, and an early draftee.  He preferred the carbine as his experience with the M-1 were bad.  He was a superb marksman, though he preferred a quick second shot to a slower one.  He did a lot of patroling and just used head shots: bullet placement is all. 
 
Quote    Reply

Bob Roberts       8/12/2009 12:21:17 PM
I absolutely love these debates.  They usually go on for pages, no conclusion is reached, and nothing resembling a consensus is ever agreed upon.  That said I have noticed in several video footage clips that it appears that U.S. troops engage their targets at fairly long range with precise semi-automatic fire with optical sights. If this is now the standard operating procedure, that is engaging targets at ranges well over 200 meters with accurate semiautomatic fire wouldn't it make sense to have a larger cartridge with more "stopping power", if stopping power actually exists?
 
Quote    Reply

MAJUSMCRET    Twisting, tumbling, and knocking them down   8/12/2009 2:16:04 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Cragius       8/12/2009 11:12:44 PM
I'm not sure where the statement that the .45ACP had a 60% larger head on surface area to the 9mm or that the 7.62x51mm is 88% larger head on than the 5.56mm comes from.   Maybe I am missing something but . 45ACP is 11.4mm.  Thus 11.4mm/9.0mm =1.27.  So basically the head sectional size is 27% larger for the .45ACP.  In the case of the 7.62x51mm vs the 5.56x45mm the values would come out that the 7.62mm is 37% larger. 
 
Even in standard bullet weights in which the.45ACP is nominally 230gr and the 9mmx19 is 115gr the .45ACP is 200% heavier than the 9mm.  The nominal weight of the 7.62x51mm round is 150gr and the M855/SS109 weight is 62gr.  That makes the 7.62x51mm round 242% heavier than the 5.56x45 62gr round. 
 
Just an observation on the math.  I agree that the controversy between small and fast vs slow and big will continue.  There is no perfect bullet as there is no perfect weapon.   For me?  For close combat at intermediate ranges with limited cover, like most small to mid size cities/suburban areas/light woods/etc.. then the 5.56x45 makes sense since it will reach out to about 500m and usually terminal at 200m or less from a 20in. rifle or about 125m from a 14in barrel.  Added to that the relatively light weight for weapon and 240-300 rounds of ammo makes this good to go.
 
 For  heavy woods/large cities/jungle/desert/mountains I would opt for the 7.62x51mm.  The round will reach out to 800m with power to punch through most light to intermediate cover without too much deflection.  It is relatively more stable in wind for use on open terrain.  Unfortunately the likelihood of over penetration is higher but if you are shooting through cover to get at someone then :)
 
Again nothing is perfect.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Arbalest       8/13/2009 12:48:50 AM
The sectional area of a bullet is pi * radius^2.
So (11.4/2)^2 = (5.7)^2 = 32.49
     (9.0/2)^2 = (4.5)^2 = 20.25
The difference of 12.24 is about a 60% increase over 20.25.
In all cases, multiply by pi to get the real cross-sectional area. This is
not needed to do a comparison.
 
But some of the bullet energies seem off.
Most civilian ballistics tables put the list the .45 ACP as having much
more energy than the 9mm Parabellum.  The article looks like it has
swapped values, but it could be a conversion error, or data for a
different 9mm.
 
Converting the energies of the 30-06 (3660J) and .303 (3320J), I get
2699 ft/lb and 2448 ft/lb, respectively.  These numbers fall within the
published numbers.
 
But the German 7.92mm (4670 joules) looks to contain a typo, as it
yields 3444 ft/lb.  This looks like a 300 Weatherby. 3670J yields
2706 ft/lb, which fits most civilian tables.
 
 
Quote    Reply

timon_phocas    2nd Hand Observations    8/13/2009 2:58:37 PM
I showed the above article to my son-in-law, who served with the 3rd ID in Iraq from late 2004 through 2005. His response was to bring up one of the pictures from his tour in Iraq. It showed a the body of an insurgent. He explained that the insurgent had 14 bullet wounds from 5.56 mm rounds; 12 were were in his torso, 1 in his pelvis and one in his head. The insurgent was charging my son-in-law's unit. He continuing to run and fire, in spite of bullet wounds, until a round to the face knocked him down. He was trying to get up when he finally died of blood loss.


My son-in-law said that that the 62-grain bullet and the 1-in-7 rifling worked together to eliminate tumbling, and that in his experience,m the typical wound from a 5.56 was a pencil-size hole all the way through a body of an enemy. 
 
My son-in-law said that he personally purchased match grade, 77-grain, 5.56 mm rounds with open points. They were not hollow points, which are tapped down to the lead core, these were only tapped as far as the copper jacket. He would load these in his first magazine, with military issue ammunition in his follow-on magazines. He stated that the 77-grain bullets knocked down opponents much more effectively.

 
Quote    Reply

andyf       8/13/2009 3:22:53 PM
what we need is a measure of energy dumped into the target.
maybe something derived from bullet frontal area and energy at range?
 
Quote    Reply

Cragius       8/14/2009 3:03:35 AM
To Arbalest...Well that explains the math question :) Thanks
 
As for the 77gr OTM. Yes it does reach out a bit more with an increase in the fragmentation range.  This is due more to the length of the bullet more so than the weight of the bullet.  Overall cartridge length remains the same. 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       8/14/2009 5:13:28 AM

what we need is a measure of energy dumped into the target.

maybe something derived from bullet frontal area and energy at range?


What you want is the science of "terminal ballistics".  But don't get your hopes up, they are apparently still arguing over how to frame the problem.
 
Quote    Reply

andyf       8/14/2009 11:20:30 AM
hmm, as far as I can figure.
bullet energy/ frontal bullet area = penetration  < maybe a pressure term, megapascals?>
amount of dumped energy - again, related to bullet frontal area = velocity. < maybe drag?.>
it looks like the most important term is frontal area, calibre
secondary is velocity
 
damage would be something related to (bullet frontal area <calibre> ^2 ) * velocity
 
but you have to take into account the total work doable as well, so replace velocity term with energy.
just some ramblins
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2