Gun and Game Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,067 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just watched this on the Military Arms Channel on YouTube, It's not very Scientific, but interesting showing the difference between 1:12 20", 1:7 20" and 1:7 14.5" AR's using M193 55gr Ball and M855 62gr Ball ammunition against soft targets (Watermelons).

 

·
Gun Toting Boeing Driver
Joined
·
20,062 Posts
Kinda follows my unscientific stuff from hunting with ARs. The round seems devastating to thin skins when at closer ranges (meaning higher velocity) but rapidly peters off in effectiveness at longer ranges (at least with ball ammo--the round certainly CAN be effective if placed very very well but the kinda explosive innard damage doesn't seem to happen as much outside of 100-130 yards with a 16" upper especially when using FMJ).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,067 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I'm busy working (yes I do work). What was the end result?
The Original AR's with 1:12 and M193 55gr and the Newer 1:7 with the M855 62gr had the best results, the the shorter 1:7 14.5" losing a fair amount of performance to the 20". In short, nothing that most in here would be surprised at, but it was a nice side by side illustration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,067 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Kinda follows my unscientific stuff from hunting with ARs. The round seems devastating to thin skins when at closer ranges (meaning higher velocity) but rapidly peters off in effectiveness at longer ranges (at least with ball ammo--the round certainly CAN be effective if placed very very well but the kinda explosive innard damage doesn't seem to happen as much outside of 100-130 yards with a 16" upper especially when using FMJ).
I once shot a big fat groundhog, on the fly using an HK-93 (17" 1:12) at close to 100 yards using 55 gr fmj and 55 gr soft points, it was one of those he was there in Mom's garden and I just happened to have a few mixed rounds laying in the case when I opened it deals. I missed the first shot and took 3 more on the run hitting him with the last two connecting with 1 ball and 1 soft point, and the difference was marked.

the fmj had a exit wound of about 2" and the soft point had an exit wound of the size of a small coffee can, about 5-6". That was the only time I remember connecting on the same target at the same range with both FMJ and a Soft or Hollow point.

That's one of the things I don't quite get with the mania over ball rounds these days. The primary reason that the military uses them is because of international law not allowing military's to use expanding bullets, and all the main players have done everything they can to maximize the Damage that an FMJ does while not breaking that law when a Soft or Hollow point is still more effective, especially at higher velocities, at least as far as non-hardened targets are concerned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,593 Posts
I once shot a big fat groundhog, on the fly using an HK-93 (17" 1:12) at close to 100 yards using 55 gr fmj and 55 gr soft points, it was one of those he was there in Mom's garden and I just happened to have a few mixed rounds laying in the case when I opened it deals. I missed the first shot and took 3 more on the run hitting him with the last two connecting with 1 ball and 1 soft point, and the difference was marked.

the fmj had a exit wound of about 2" and the soft point had an exit wound of the size of a small coffee can, about 5-6". That was the only time I remember connecting on the same target at the same range with both FMJ and a Soft or Hollow point.

That's one of the things I don't quite get with the mania over ball rounds these days. The primary reason that the military uses them is because of international law not allowing military's to use expanding bullets, and all the main players have done everything they can to maximize the Damage that an FMJ does while not breaking that law when a Soft or Hollow point is still more effective, especially at higher velocities, at least as far as non-hardened targets are concerned.
I really think that particular chunk of international law needs to be reconsidered. It made sense when the whole world was firing full-power military cartridges, but now that the majority of the world is going to war with varmint calibers it just doesn't make sense.

Of course several of the next-gen rifles around the world are being tested in calibers not terribly dissimilar power-wise from the .280 British we should have adopted instead of the .308 - such as the 6.8 SPC.

If and when that day comes I guess fmj will not be as big of an issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,757 Posts
I guess he just tested general issue ammo.

So no MK 262 MOD-1 OTM 77gr. ?
Or Mk 318 MOD-0 OTM 62gr. ?

I'd also be interested in just for test purposes the performance of the. original 1-14" twist in different barrel lengths.
 

·
Gun Toting Boeing Driver
Joined
·
20,062 Posts
I once shot a big fat groundhog, on the fly using an HK-93 (17" 1:12) at close to 100 yards using 55 gr fmj and 55 gr soft points, it was one of those he was there in Mom's garden and I just happened to have a few mixed rounds laying in the case when I opened it deals. I missed the first shot and took 3 more on the run hitting him with the last two connecting with 1 ball and 1 soft point, and the difference was marked.

the fmj had a exit wound of about 2" and the soft point had an exit wound of the size of a small coffee can, about 5-6". That was the only time I remember connecting on the same target at the same range with both FMJ and a Soft or Hollow point.

That's one of the things I don't quite get with the mania over ball rounds these days. The primary reason that the military uses them is because of international law not allowing military's to use expanding bullets, and all the main players have done everything they can to maximize the Damage that an FMJ does while not breaking that law when a Soft or Hollow point is still more effective, especially at higher velocities, at least as far as non-hardened targets are concerned.
Yeah.....my M193 or fiocchi .223 55gr shots were usually taken on a groundhog or other varmint target of opportunity and there wasn't really time to easily switch to the 64 gold dots at the time. The FMJs did do some explosive damage up close--or at closer ranges--but at longer range not so much which I think is consistent with the design of the round.

Based on accuracy and performance for my particular situation given the choice I'd almost always use the 64 gold dots for hunting critters or in a defensive role (I haven't explored the heavier weights like the 77gr all that much).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,757 Posts
Another thing I just remembered there is actually ballistic performance data the US military has compiled on bullet performance that I believe was forensic based information.
It may be hard to get but I've seen it on video tape years ago. It covered the ammo he tested and both 9x19mmNATO and .45ACP

What was covered was similar results except they mentioned the bullets breaking apart at the cannelure up to certain distances in flesh and bone. In relation to wound channels I believe.
IIRC, the purpose of the information was to show medics and corpsman what to expect in treating gunshot wounds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,852 Posts
I once shot a big fat groundhog, on the fly using an HK-93 (17" 1:12) at close to 100 yards using 55 gr fmj and 55 gr soft points, it was one of those he was there in Mom's garden and I just happened to have a few mixed rounds laying in the case when I opened it deals. I missed the first shot and took 3 more on the run hitting him with the last two connecting with 1 ball and 1 soft point, and the difference was marked.

the fmj had a exit wound of about 2" and the soft point had an exit wound of the size of a small coffee can, about 5-6". That was the only time I remember connecting on the same target at the same range with both FMJ and a Soft or Hollow point.

That's one of the things I don't quite get with the mania over ball rounds these days. The primary reason that the military uses them is because of international law not allowing military's to use expanding bullets, and all the main players have done everything they can to maximize the Damage that an FMJ does while not breaking that law when a Soft or Hollow point is still more effective, especially at higher velocities, at least as far as non-hardened targets are concerned.
You know E-One. So you can shoot through the police's body armor!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
16,752 Posts
I really think that particular chunk of international law needs to be reconsidered. It made sense when the whole world was firing full-power military cartridges, but now that the majority of the world is going to war with varmint calibers it just doesn't make sense.

Of course several of the next-gen rifles around the world are being tested in calibers not terribly dissimilar power-wise from the .280 British we should have adopted instead of the .308 - such as the 6.8 SPC.

If and when that day comes I guess fmj will not be as big of an issue.
It never made sense, it was just one "rule" of many that came out over a 150 years ago when people viewed warfare differently and having more to do with "honor" and "sportsmanship" for lack of a better term.

The first international treaty banning ammo was in 1868 when the Russians banned the use of an exploding musket ball that was designed to be an anti material round. It exploded on impact and was designed to take out black power stores in the wooden casks... It would punch through the wood and then explode and ignite the gunpowder inside. But ... It also exploded when it hit soft tissue like people...and it was nasty...

The russians thought it would be a diplomatic and PR nightmare if they ever got caught using it on people... so they actually banned their own ammo and got most of Europe to sign on to a treaty limiting explosive ammo of small arm sizes...

People back then thought that wars should just "weaken" the other nation's military by "simple wounding" or by otherwise "clean kills" and not by using weapons that would cripple people for life... or cause undue pain and suffering....

The 1899 Hague Convention added the expanding type bullets to it...

Even later on in WW1 people were still of a different mindset back then... lots of people thought that buckshot should be banned as well because it was basically "to nasty" of a weapon... there were times on the battlefield where one side would execute vs capture any soldier caught using a shotgun on the battlefield. Although this was also the time when each side was gassing each other too with chemical weapons so.... the logical fallacies of all these mindsets really didn't make any sense back then anymore than it does today.:rolleyes:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,835 Posts
Personally, with the possibility of a hot uncivil war looming, I am glad civilian arms are not hampered by the silly rules of the Hague Convention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TXplt

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,593 Posts
I can't remember which war it was in medieval times, but there was one where the two sides agreed to not use sharpened hooks on their halberds or certain types of arrowheads. Google shows me nothing, so it is probably in one of the random clippings in my SCA crap.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top