4 ms·
I read a few articles on weapon magazines in 80s about this. 1) while 5.56 is lighter, when it impacts with the human body the bullet will often impart the so-
by Pamar 8y ago
I read a few articles on weapon magazines in 80s about this.
1) while 5.56 is lighter, when it impacts with the human body the bullet will often impart the so-called "tumbling effect" (i.e. instead of keeping its straight course it basically tumbles around inside your flesh - and may create secondary shrapnel if it hits a bone, causing a lot of damage and hydroshock). So yes, if you want to hit someone behind light cover, like a wooden door, 7.62 is more effective, but if you hit directly the resulting damage is equivalent.
2) yes, the bullets are lighter/smaller - this means your average infantryman can carry more magazines as part of his load, so you may be able to fight a bit longer than you opponent packing 7.62.
EDIT: added some words to clarify the tumbling effect.
- kyrieeschaton 8y agoTumbling and fragmentation are both highly dependent on terminal velocity and the underlying stability of the round. For instance M855 will not fragment reliably unless it hits ~2700FPS, which out of a 14.5" barrel gives you under 100 meters. In Mogadishu, M855 poked neat little holes, rather than tumbling or fragmenting, in Somali fighters with very little body fat. M193, which is obsolete for military usage but still the most popular bulk round on the civilian market, almost never tumbles in gel tests as it is overstabilized by the 1:7 twist, 16" barrels predominant in civilian ARs.
- potta_coffee 8y ago556 round was originally designed to be fired from a barrel with a different twist, which would allow tumbling more easily.
- aclsid 8y agoThat tumbling effect sales pitch is the most baffling part of this whole story to me. It is great in a lab with ballistic gel on an uncovered target, but hardly the reality out there. I think sooner than later this whole fiasco will be in the past once the move to 6mm cartridges become a thing.