The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Real world performance of 5.56 FMJ vs varmit bullet. With pictures.
Crosshair    10/1/2004 3:59:59 PM
I own a Savage 22-250 that I make handloads for. The debate of the 5.56 round on this board is quite intense. My personal belief is that the 5.56 is an inefective military round if used with FMJ bullets. However if used with rapidly expanding bullets like are used in varmit bullets, it can be deadly. I decided to do an experiment to test the performance of the "regular" FMJ bullet against a varmit bullet. I loaded 20 rounds total the only thing being different is the type of bullet used. 10 had 55 grain Hornady FMJ-BT bullets, the other 10 had 55 grain Combined Technology Balistic Silvertips. I switched bullet types every other round to eliminate any variation that might be caused by loading one type first. I used 22-250 Winchester cases that had been fired once and neck sized as well as Winchester large rifle primers. A hand weighed 38 grain charge of IMR-4320 sat underneath each bullet.

For test targets I used 2 liter bottles filled to the brim with water (I drink lots of soda). A co-worker has a gravel pit behind his house I used for shooting. There was no wind that day (rare for North Dakota) and I set up the four bottles at 100yds and climbed up the bank and set up my rifle. I fired from a sitting position. I alternated rounds and hit all four bottles on the first try. I then cronographed four rounds of each type and averaged the results.

Personaly I was unimpressed with the FMJ-BT rounds I don't think they did enough damage, even at the incredibly high velocity they where fired at. An M-16 or M-4 is going to have much less velocity and do even less damage while the balistic tips should remain effective due to their design to expand at almost any velocity. Penitration of steel plate was about equal for the two rounds, but I didn't get any pics of the plate.

Here are photo's of the results on my test.



Here is the large, un-resized version. NSFDU (Not safe for Dial-up) 682kb

Here is my rifle that I used in the test, LARGE FILE

I await your posts and will answer anything I have not already.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Crosshair    Doh, here are the pics, Curse my HTML   10/1/2004 4:05:10 PM
Let me try this again, Strategypage really needs a preview option. Here is the large, un-resized version. NSFDU (Not safe for Dial-up) 682kb My rifle
 
Quote    Reply

Crosshair    *sigh* I will just give you the links and you can copy and paste.   10/1/2004 4:07:30 PM
Small picture, link Large Picture link My rifle, link
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Doh, here are the pics, Curse my HTML   10/1/2004 4:31:23 PM
Expanding (dum dum) bullets are illegal for signees of the hague Convention remember.
 
Quote    Reply

Crosshair    Let's try this one last time. Here is the pic   10/1/2004 5:33:17 PM
link
 
Quote    Reply

Crosshair    RE Yimmy, and larger picture.   10/1/2004 5:37:44 PM
We NEVER signed at the Hague Convention can we please kill this issue. I was atempting to ilustrate how innefective the FMJ 5.56 bullet is compared to expanding bullets. BTW here is the large version of the file in previous post. link
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:RE Yimmy, and larger picture.   10/2/2004 10:02:54 AM
Do you have any evidence or reasons why America never signed it?
 
Quote    Reply

Crosshair    RE:RE Yimmy, and larger picture. Here ya go   10/2/2004 5:02:35 PM
Right here, link We never signed the 1899 convention, we signed onto the Hague Convention IV of 1907 where it states. "...it is especially forbidden - To employ arms, projectiles, or material {sic} calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;" So this means that chemical weapons are a no no.(as if they weren't already) as well as, depending on your opinion, landmines that are designed to maim rather than kill. Again depending on your view (since the convention very loosely defined this issue.) ball ammo, and expanding rounds are pefectly legal because they kill quickly (you could also make the case against ball ammo because it is less lethal and causes more wounded enemy) Poisened bullets are out as well as frangible ammo because it will desintigrate if it hits hard bone and spread millions of fragments through the body. Again, the wording is so vauge as to mean nothing. If the US went in tomorrow with balistic tip ammo legaly we would be OK. But the media would have a field day if a bullet accidently hit a little girl and blew her lungs out (like the media doesn't do this already)because her nice dad was using her as a human shield. Nevermind that they have nutjobs beheading helpless civilians and hardly any muslims show any outrage. /rant off
 
Quote    Reply

TRiple_C    RE:RE Yimmy, and larger picture. Here ya go   10/2/2004 7:23:53 PM
Unfortunately it doesn't really matter--because United States is so powerful, it is automatically assumed that it is responsible for international conventions signed by the old Powers, even if U.S. is not a signator. I personally find the idea of banning the use of fragible ammunitions while wars are being fought by nalpalms, cluster bombs and flame throwers rediculous, but the international pressure is going to affect the United States, signator or not.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy