Can anyone substantiate this?

[JackOfAllTradesMasterAtNone]

And we must remember that the military 5.56 round is not designed to kill. At its inception during the Viet Nam war, it was meant to maim and require more of the enemy to attend to the wounded than alow another of the enemy shooting back at our U.S. troops.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Can anyone substantiate this?

Total BS, that story has been passed around for years and thoroughly debunked.

 

[ilbob]

IIRC, the original round as designed by Stoner was designed to deliberately tumble so as to make for a more effective round.

The army changed it.

 

[Soldiersurfs]

IIRC, the original round as designed by Stoner was designed to deliberately tumble so as to make for a more effective round.

The army changed it.

It still tumbles...... and "bounces"

 

[buzz_knox]

All bullets have a tendency to tumble. It doesn't add much to wounding ability.

What makes the 5.56 effective is its tendency to fragment along the cannelure. When the round drops below the fragmentation velocity (or the cannelure is absent), the effectiveness drops off.

 

[elChupacabra!]

Yeah - my understanding is that M193 out of that 20" barrel provides some grossly disproportionate wound channels within say 200m.

Fackler certainly didn't believe it was intended to wound, if you agree with him.

Also regarding the cannelure, the original Mk262 Mod 0, using the Nosler Custom Competition 77gr OTM bullet SANS cannelure, is said by the authors of the Ammo Oracle (again, if you believe them) to have better terminal ballistics than Mk262 Mod 1 - the Sierra MatchKing 77gr WITH cannelure.

Not sure how this translates to 55gr bullets, but with the longer 77gr ones, the cannelure apparently isn't necessary for violent spalling at the proper velocities.

 

[JohnKSa]

All bullets have a tendency to tumble. It doesn't add much to wounding ability.

Which is why the Russians designed their 5.45x39mm round to tumble but not to fragment...

 

[Vern Humphrey]

All equipment developed by the Military begins with a statement of what is supposed to do. That's called the Required Operational Capability.

Find an official statement requiring that the ammuntion yet to be developed is supposed to "tumble" and wound rather than kill.

I'll give you $100.

 

[Treo]

I never heard that the round itself was designed to wound rather than kill, but from basic on I was taught that if you kill an enemy that's one man off the battlefield but that if you wound an enemy that's three men off the battlefield ( the woundee and two of his buddies to take care of him)

That type of thinking is probably the basis for the rumor

 

[Soldiersurfs]

Find an official statement requiring that the ammuntion yet to be developed is supposed to "tumble" and wound rather than kill.

From what I have seen the "internal tumbling" increases lethality
I am not saying it was designed to do that. But hits that might have been an in and out "flesh wound" can be more lethal with 5.56 then other calibers.

 

[buzz_knox]

Which is why the Russians designed their 5.45x39mm round to tumble but not to fragment...

Remember the era in which the 5.45 was designed (late 1960's to early 1970's). The 5.56 was this death ray that tumbled through flesh like a buzzsaw. The actual reason the 5.56 worked (and in some cases, didn't work) was thoroughly studied for a while.

The 5.45 tends to work like an early M193, which really isn't that bad. Combine that with it being a very easy round to shoot and shoot well, and you get nice performance. Of course, Kalashnikov didn't see it that way (wanting to update the 7.62 rather than "downgrading" to a "pipsquek" round).

 

[TEDDY]

history lesson

the 7.35 carcano has an alum tip.so that it tumbles on impact.the 303 has first a wooden tip, then a alum tip,then a plastic tip.the m16/ar15 had a 12 in twist for 55 gr now it is 7 in to stablise the 69 gr.
actualy if you kill the enemy he does not come back.but wounding takes not only the wonded but aids and doctors ect.

 

[MMCSRET]

Please, please, please explain to me in great and patient detail how "tumbling" promotes, contributes, improves or any other word that fits: ACCURACY?

 

[TEDDY]

accu

the tumbling take effect after the bullet impacts

 

[Soldiersurfs]

Please, please, please explain to me in great and patient detail how "tumbling" promotes, contributes, improves or any other word that fits: ACCURACY?

It doesnt im talking internal damge. When the stars are lined up just right

 

[MMCSRET]

Then, it must be assumed that the projectile is built "out of balance" in order to accomplish this? If so then why don't the other military rounds accomplish the same thing. Certainly this effect would be desirable in 7.62X51; or not?

 

[Soldiersurfs]

Then, it must be assumed that the projectile is built "out of balance" in order to accomplish this? If so then why don't the other military rounds accomplish the same thing. Certainly this effect would be desirable in 7.62X51; or not?

I think it has more to do with the light weight vs high velocity of the round.

 

[elChupacabra!]

had a 12 in twist for 55 gr now it is 7 in to stablise the 69 gr.

Actually, per the Ammo Oracle, the difference in a 12 / 9 / 7 twist barrel doesn't have that much to do with lethality - they argue that the bullets aren't any more stable with a 1/7 twist than they were with a 1/12 twist - at least as affects fragmentation on target. They get into the various RPMs involved - it gets kinda mathy

Also I think the 1/7 twist is more related to the long M856 tracer round than anything else. The military doesn't generally use 69gr bullets, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[elChupacabra!]

out of balance

All spitzer bullets are inherantly "out of balance." As long as the pointy end is going forward, the bullet is travelling "backwards" as far as inertia is concerned - think about a shuttlecock, foster slug, or even a paper airplane. The heavy end always wants to go first... and the heavy end is at the BACK of a spitzer rifle bullet.

What keeps it pointy-end first is the rotation imparted by the rifling of the barrel. As long as that bullet is moving fast enough and - accordingly - spinning fast enough, it'll stay pointy end first. When that bullet enters a fluid (like the human body), it slows down dramatically and flips backwards, to continue its path in a stable, tail-first attitude...

Unless the stresses of that "flip" are too great for the jacket, at which point the round fragments and spalls violently, turning the temporary cavity into a large permanent one.

That's the logic, at least

And yes I believe the difference between M80 and M193 is that M80 (7.62mm ball) isn't moving fast enough to fragment reliably... the bullet could probably be updated to do so, though, with maybe a thinner jacket? Not sure about that one... I'm not a .308 Win expert (or .223 Rem expert, either )

 

[MMCSRET]

I shoot a 223 in a 9" twist. I have never found any evidence of tumbling with any bullet weight from 35 gr. v-max to 69 gr. sierras. Please refresh my memory on how and when this happens and what it is that promotes this "tumbling".

 

[elChupacabra!]

MMCSRET -

All spitzer bullets are inherantly "out of balance." As long as the pointy end is going forward, the bullet is travelling "backwards" as far as inertia is concerned - think about a shuttlecock, foster slug, or even a paper airplane. The heavy end always wants to go first... and the heavy end is at the BACK of a spitzer rifle bullet.

What keeps it pointy-end first is the rotation imparted by the rifling of the barrel. As long as that bullet is moving fast enough and - accordingly - spinning fast enough, it'll stay pointy end first. When that bullet enters a fluid (like the human body), it slows down dramatically and flips backwards, to continue its path in a stable, tail-first attitude...

Unless the stresses of that "flip" are too great for the jacket, at which point the round fragments and spalls violently, turning the temporary cavity into a large permanent one.

It shouldn't start to tumble until it goes in some sort of fluid - read body... if it does, it's too heavy and isn't stabilizing properly. But the tumbling should only happen on impact...

 

[SaxonPig]

The 5.56 wasn't "designed" to wound, but the smaller caliber does tend to be less lethal and military logic has always been that's it's better to wound an enemy than to kill him. A wounded enemy still needs food, water, and now add medical care and two healthy soldiers to carry him off the line. Wounding the enemy soldier causes them to lose more resources so from a tactical standpoint it is more desirable.

For some reason some people get very upset at this topic. I really don't know why but some guys want to violently dispute the notion that wounding the enemy is better than killing him. But it's true. Naturally, the individual soldier in a firefight isn't thinking about wounding the enemy, just taking him out of the fight.

 

[AndyC]

Then, it must be assumed that the projectile is built "out of balance" in order to accomplish this? If so then why don't the other military rounds accomplish the same thing.

Not necessarily - the Russian 5.45mm bullet (specs = 5N7) has a steel core and has a lead plug on top of that, in front of which is a hollow space - all this is surrounded by the jacket. The bullet is perfectly stable in flight, but when the bullet impacts, the lead plug is thrown forward into the hollow space (much like a car-passenger without a seatbelt), throwing the bullet off-balance.

 

[MMCSRET]

I have played with ballistic gelatin a couple of times and have never seen this happen!!!

 

[CWL]

My personal conversations with former Khmer Rouge soldiers/rebels in Cambodia had them believing in mystical effects of 5.56mm NATO ammo. This was a fearsome round because it had a tendency to tumble & fragment inside a target. It created much more damage than SovBlok 7.62X39 and because of internal wound size +fragmentation, it was a fearful wound to treat in the field.

Because of this belief, M16s are a popular and desired rifle to be issued to forces in Cambodia to this day (even former Khmer or Vietnamese army soldiers).

I do not believe that that this was an original design concept, but just turned out to be so because of the high velocity + narrow profile of the bullet.