Where does 5.56 being a round not made to kill but to injure come from?

M855 will icepick, but mostly at longer distances and at slower velocities (short barrels).

Within 100yds it's not TOO shabby, but it's hardly great.

.222 Remington will perform pretty well from a 20" barrel, boost it and pick a good bullet, and you've got a nice cartridge for combat; the 5.56x45mm NATO. Mk.262 Mod 1 is a pretty good load for the caliber.

Attached: MK-262-Mod-1_001.jpg (600x399, 34K)

Memes.

It is meant to disable the enemy. When it was designed, death, severe injury, unconsciousness, etc. were all considered successful, so long as it made the other guy incapable of standing back up and shooting your dudes. That's all they tested for. That's all anyone tests for. Trying to make a "wounding" round, or a round that's especially lethal, usually means having to devote more money and time to it. Who really gives a shit if it kills or doesn't kill the enemy, so long as it's cheap and puts them on the ground?

youtu.be/QItA83cPpS4
You'd best start believing in it, mate, all the tests I've seen pretty firmly place it in the 762 range.

it's fuddlore coming from that modern 5.56 is made to fragment against hard surfaces, to reduce risk of injury from ricochets, and that it yaws in the body, which "does more damage" but sometimes gets interpreted as creating more grave non-fatal wounds because of the round's small size making it sound not as lethal as .308 or whatever.

except that boolits are made to yaw in the body is also itself fuddlore.

>purposefully developing a bullet that isn't even designed to kill
>for vietnam
Do you realize how utterly retarded you sound

Is yawing and fragmentation a reliable wounding mechanism? Is it as effective as hollow-points? Does this mean I can hunt deer with FMJ?

this is the sort of "not wrong" that creates fuddlore

YES all that's cared about in weapons is that it incapacitates people and the things they operate, but "incapacitate" usually just translates to "kills or destroys". people can fight through wounds and medical costs incurred by combat are negligible compared to things like blown-up aircraft and tanks and the economic losses of having to do total war compared to having a normal peacetime economy, and even then, it's fucking 2018 and total war isn't a thing anymore

>I know for a fact that the Brits increased jacket thickness of their SS109 ammo specifically to prevent fragmentation and decrease lethality.
literally the opposite is true, european powers abandoned a lot of warfare treaties between WWI and WWII because the powers realized that if you take down an airplane, it doesn't matter to the people inside whether you used incendiary bullets or not

no

I wasn't talking about M855A1, this was something more recent.
It's nice to hear the A1 has better terminal ballistics, but it also doesn't tell me all that much with the armor penetration, regular M855 might have defeated that armor too.

Kinda like his carbine a bit, A2 upper, MOE handguard, camo paint. It's simple yet tacticool.

From scribd.com/document/22469572/Biting-the-Bullet-5pt56mm

"The US version of the standard NATO SS109 bullet, the M855, differs slightly from the British L2A2 round by encasing the steel core in a thinner copper jacket. This tends to rupture at very high impact velocities, causing the bullet to fragment delivering an increased lethal effect. This benefit is not available with British specification ammunition because of a strict adherence to our interpretation of the Hague Convention, which deems such ammunition illegal."

Everything I've learned about the M855A1 indicates that it's much better at than the M855 at pretty much everything. It's more accurate, it penetrates barriers more effectively, and it fragments within 2" of tissue where the M855 needed 7-9".

Splendid, it should have existed 20 years ago.

It's really deadly if it hits a bone, not if it doesn't. .45 acp is deadlier at 1/3rd the speed just going through meat.

It doesn't depend on fleet yaw for it to have a terminal effect, M193 and M855 does. M855 in particular is very inconsistent in this regard which is why it has such mixed results. M855a1 being fleet yaw independent is its biggest strength and why it is so highly regarded despite its trouble with being hard on rifles.

Attached: FleetYaw2.jpg (526x518, 76K)

Attached: NATO small arms study.jpg (1268x3596, 956K)

The center of gravity is just a little too far forward.

lolno, .45ACP is weak as fuck compared to .223

fuddlore spread by the same dumbasses that think a .22 will bounce around your body and leave you like a piece of swiss cheese.

The fact that it started off as .222 Special, which was popular amongst target shooters and varmint hunters. The case was stretched 20% to allow for higher pressures but people didn't have a lot of confidence dropping .308 for a souped up target round

I'm not arguing the ineffectiveness of 5.56, especially with a 20" barrel. However, outside of fragmentation range, the projectile has a tendency to wound non-fatally due to the small weight and diameter. Much like .222, initially 5.56 was fielded with lighter weight projectiles. Ballistic innovations have come a long way, with heavier projectiles that can perform better from carbine length barrels, fragment at farther distance, and maintain more energy to transfer on target at farther ranges

In a jungle, lightweight projectiles would easily be deflected by leaves and foliage, perhaps leading a soldier to suspect they had wounded when in reality they may have missed what otherwise would have been a connecting shot. And at extended ranges, it is not uncommon for 5.56 to fail to fragment leaving a .22 sized hole wherever it hits

But within the intended scope of use, 5.56 has performed well and that's why it is still in use, despite shortcomings. It is light, efficient and capable of reaching far enough to be useful even if not as deadly as at closer ranges

Attached: o-TATYANA-DANYLYSHYN-570.jpg (570x379, 47K)

they say that 5.56 is just as good if not better then 7.62 NATO
but .... im finding it a little different ...
7.62 is going longer ranges with less drift and hitting harder on the animals im shooting
it may also be im shooting civ 308 win and not mill spec but...
IDK big heavy rounds with lots of powder in the brass just seem to work better for me
and i have no problem with how heavy it is and the recoil

M855 only does shitty when you use barrels it wasn't meant for, which is anything under 20".
This, and shooting scarecrows combined with shit Army marksmanship=fuddlore, see .30 carbine won't penetrate frozen coats.

.45 acp is like twice as wide and travels at less than half the speed of .556. .556 explodes if it hits a bone but otherwise, it will fly through your flesh like a weak shot.

Attached: 9mm.jpg (655x437, 39K)

The biggest + for the 5.56 is the fact you can carry 120% more ammo per weight than 7.62x51mm, and it's light recoil allows controllable automatic fire. What codified the 5.56 is both the Israelis and the Soviets whent with a 5mm caliber.

>muh 9mm is as good!
9mmfags are fucking insufferable, they think that their shit round is viable because it's easy to shoot, not realising that you only have a very small window to win a gunfight.

The icepick meme comes from the experiences of Rangers in Somalia when they were shooting M855 at skinnies, and said skinnies were so thin the rounds failed to perform normally.

youtube.com/watch?v=e1tAtW2JKRE&t=219s

>i don't know what im talking about, the post
There are plenty of good expanding/fragmenting 5.56 rounds on the market, even ball 5.56 tends to fragment a lot of the time when hitting simply flesh.

And for reference, energy wise the 5.56 is 2-3x as powerful as .45 which is usually in the 400-500ftlb range.

>what are fragmentation thresholds

In 1990 you might sound somewhat like a reasonable person, but ballistics science has moved on since then. Now it's iconic ignorance. Try using google before you post.

They're using M855A1 now.

Trade offs for each. Assuming well designed rounds:

Fragmenting produces massive wounds that taper off to very small wounds. Lots of weight is shed for the first aprx 9"(generality) but after that only a few of the largest fragments are still going. Fairly reliable, but not entirely.

Expanding produces a bigger wound then just an icepicking round, and makes a wound of approximately that diameter for the entirety of it's penetration. Typically get more penetration than fragmenting rounds. more reliable than fragmenting, particularly when barriers get in the way, but can still fail.

Yawing simply means that the bullet has become unstable and turns end over end. This means the wound will vary from icepick sized to the width and height of the bullet as it rolls end over end. Usually a yawing round will only rotate once or maybe twice in a target, and whether that will happen in an important structure or not is anyone's guess. Very unpredictable per round performance, tends to penetrate more than either. Sometimes rounds that are weakly designed will break up and fragment when they yaw, due to the increased forces on them.

Don't hunt deer with FMJ.

Attached: IMG_20170625_155308.jpg (787x644, 55K)

yer mum

Furries Are the new jew

This. And whenever you hear some r-tard repeat it, ask them where they came by this knowledge. Ask them what they think about CONARC and SCHV project. If they don't know what you are talking about then they can fuck right off.

from AKfags/slavaboos

Every you said is correct. However, the new M855A1 EPR seems to have solved all of the previous problems. It does penetrate steel better than ball 7.26. For civilian shooters, the 55gr solid copper Barns THX are the way to go.

Is anybody going to talk about the fucking elephant in the room? You posted a fucking furry on Jow Forums, what the actual fuck?

fucking wildly incorrect.
kill yourself for being so wrong

holy fucking newfag.
Hows your first day posting on Jow Forums doing?

newfag detected

Attached: da719bb5914de8dad008ee420ac37842.png (1500x1357, 1.29M)

This is a gunboard you nogun fags don't belong here.

Fixing my Ruger Mk. I right now actually

Attached: image.jpg (3264x2448, 1.15M)

Because it's the smallest (lightest) round that could maybe possibly be recommended to kill a human if you shoot them in the right place with the right barrel with the right velocity ammo.

No one recommends hunting deer with .223, and that's smaller game than a human. Let that sink in.

The fuck kinda deer you shooting at hombre?

>so called 'Open-Tipped Match' bullets (more or less 'these aren't hollowpoints but they totally are)

They're only open tip to make them more consistent from lot-to-lot. The jacket isn't perforated in any way to promote expansion. Same for what is supposedly "hollow point" 7.62x39 loads. The tip of a spitzer is the hardest thing to make consistently in swaging operations, so it's easiest to just omit it entirely even if the aerodynamics will theoretically suffer as a result. It's why Hornady uses plastic tips in their match ammo.