I want some of what ya'll are smoking...
I can't believe it took two pages to finally get some common sense in this topic.
The .22 caliber bullet was not designed tumble and the .223 chambering did not reinvent the .22 caliber bullet. The original M16s bullets tumbled because Colt purposely rifled the barrels wrong. The idea was to increase the wounding because it was a big step to go from a 150 grain .30 caliber down to a 55 grain .22 caliber bullet. The Army then requested the rifling to be corrected for the caliber and that was the end of the tumbling. Ask any hunter using the .223 if their bullets tumble. Now those using bullets that expand will have extra damage, but those using FMJs, such as a pelt hunter, will have a .22 inch hole going in the animal and coming out.
Wrong, on all accounts. You said a lot there, and yet nothing at all. That takes a lot of practice and revision. Usually, people who say that much say at least something right, even if it is on accident. It is the theory of probability. Like a broken clock being right twice a day. But not you. Wrong. Just wrong. You should be a politician.
All spitzer (pointed) bullets have their center of gravity towards their base due to their shape. This makes them naturally inclined to fly base forward. This tendency is why rifles have rifling, which imparts a spin on them that makes them stable, like spinning a top. However, they are only stable as long as they are spinning above a certain rotational velocity, and the necessary rotational velocity depends on the density of the medium being traveled through, and the length of the projectile. The longer the projectile is, or the more dense the medium is, the faster the bullet must be spinning in order to stabilize.
All spitzer bullets then can be stable in air but unstable in tissue, because tissue is more dense than air. So all spitzer bullets have a natural tendency to yaw and travel base forward in tissue. The variable is how long it takes them to do this. Some, like the standard 7.62mm M80 ball round can penetrate 8 inches or more in tissue before displaying any significant yawing. Others, like both M193 and M855 ball for the 5.56, start yawing in about half that distance, as observed by Fackler in both calibrated ballistic gelatin and his observation of actual battlefield wounds.
Now, if my understanding of the 5.56's history and development is correct, the original twist rate for the M16 was 1:14. The military observed that this twist rate was not fast enough to stabilize the projectile in artic conditions. Colder air is more dense than warm air and requires a faster twist rate. So it was changed to 1:12, which is still pretty slow for the caliber. When the military switched to the heavier 62 gr M855 round, a faster twist rate was needed because the bullet is longer than the lighter 55 gr M193, so the standard twist rate was changed to 1:7, which is pretty fast, but assures the bullet is adequately stabilized for all atmospheric conditions. It also comes in handy when using the heavier 77 gr Mk 262 Mod 1 rounds.
The 5.56 does yaw, and within a certain velocity threshold, out to about 140 to 160 yards, does fragment on a regular basis.
But the heart of the issue and the most disturbing trend I see in this thread is that people don't realize that rifles and rifles, and pistols are pistols.
As a pistol round, I am big fan of the .45. As a rifle round, I am
not a huge fan of the 5.56. However, if I ever have a choice between the two, I am picking the 5.56 without hesitation. Because it is a rifle round, and even a borderline anemic rifle round is worlds better than a moderately powerful handgun round.
This was a true and false question. There were two choices and even if you didn't know, you had a 50% chance of getting the right one. If you picked the .45, you're wrong.
