Joint ammo and magazines (jam)

[One 0]

the m60 HD starts off using a regular m60 mag, then you have to reload, and you get the other 3 hd mags

anyone else get this?

100th post

[ruff 102]

okay ,rangers and deltas upgraded are going to be the second set of units to follow jam

so with the at4 thing will the deltas and rangers be equiped with them?

i mean if they were special forces wouldnt they get top of the range weapons especially delta

im thinking shouldnt the new delta at least be equiped with a javelin????since wat ive read so far the at4 is a pretty crappy at weapon..and would the ranger still use the current jam at4 my point is is there a future for a jam javeline??

this is sort of off and on topic and ppl wont understand watll ill b refering to wen i post it at the bas new thread so i posted here

is it good enuff moderator???

[munger 25]

In the works from myself an others is a project called the WarGames AddPack to reconfigure all of OFP to realistic values starting with AT weapons and working our way into every vehicle in the game. Actually, it will be released in the next day or so and I would be interested in seeing what sort of response it gets from you official forum pro-realism folks. I like to refer to it as "The JAM of Everything Else".

*drool*

Ooh, this sounds great. What a lovely surprise addon. I'm a real realism nut and as such have all the OFP realism stuff like the Kylikki realism pack etc, so this is just the sort of thing I like to hear about. Looking forward to it.

So, when you say "the next day or so", are we talking this weekend?

[munger 25]

so with the at4 thing will the deltas and rangers be equiped with them?

i mean if they were special forces wouldnt they get top of the range weapons especially delta

im thinking shouldnt the new delta at least be equiped with a javelin????since wat ive read so far the at4 is a pretty crappy at weapon..and would the ranger still use the current jam at4 my point is is there a future for a jam javeline??

Rangers would likely carry AT4's but I doubt Delta would as they aren't typically used in situations where they may face armour. Neither unit would need heavy AT weaponry such as a Javelin as they are both close-in strike teams trained for things like assaulting airbases and building clearance. Javelins are only operated by small, specialist anti-armour teams which usually situate behind the infantry force and provide cover against MBT's etc.

[Aeon 0]

I want to throw a topic on the table and see what people think.

AT4 and RPG7 damage values and flight characteristics.

Plain, Air targetting, Personnel Targetting.

[...]

From another thread - about RPG-7 : http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....;st=750

[Heavy Metal 0]

I would like to see realistic ballistics and damage rankings on small arms.

The AK-47 is too powerfull and does not drop enought at range. The 7.62x39 hadd mediocre wounding effects due to ist stable and non-fragmentary projectile.

The FAL and G3 are too weak. 7.62 NATO weapons (nad the ballistically similar SVD Dragunov) should have good stopping stats over a great range.

The M-16(and all other 5.56 weapons) should have very good stopping power at close range and progressively worse beyond 200m

Same for the AK-74 The small caliber bullets can produce very nasty wounds due to the rapid instability of the 7N6 5.45 rounds and the fragmentary nature of most 5.56 ammo.

Short barreled weapons such as the XM177 and AKS-74U should take a ~%20 performance hit in stopping power and in bullet drop.

I have considerable knowledge in the ballistic and terminal effects of modern military weapons and would happily share that info with any interested modelers.

[hellfish6 7]

so with the at4 thing will the deltas and rangers be equiped with them?

i mean if they were special forces wouldnt they get top of the range weapons especially delta

im thinking shouldnt the new delta at least be equiped with a javelin????since wat ive read so far the at4 is a pretty crappy at weapon..and would the ranger still use the current jam at4 my point is is there a future for a jam javeline??

Rangers would likely carry AT4's but I doubt Delta would as they aren't typically used in situations where they may face armour. Neither unit would need heavy AT weaponry such as a Javelin as they are both close-in strike teams trained for things like assaulting airbases and building clearance. Javelins are only operated by small, specialist anti-armour teams which usually situate behind the infantry force and provide cover against MBT's etc.

Actually, the Rangers were the first unit in the Army to get Javelins. Their TO&Es are very similar to that of regular infantry units - they're just trained in more kinds of different missions. In fact, Rangers have more machineguns in their platoons (three) than normal rifle platoons (two) and I think they concentrate AT weapons in a support platoon, along with snipers and mortars.

[Gollum1 0]

the m60 HD starts off using a regular m60 mag, then you have to reload, and you get the other 3 hd mags

anyone else get this?

100th post

Yep, only bug I´ve found though.

[ruff 102]

I want to throw a topic on the table and see what people think.

AT4 and RPG7 damage values and flight characteristics.

Plain, Air targetting, Personnel Targetting.

Damage values on the plain one (450) is too high in my opinion.

Please give reasons for your thoughts, taking into account both realism AND game play.

SelectThis

im not really concerned about the damage of the at weapons

but the jam ap ranges

i wish they would come closer to u than normal

like if the skill of the soldier is to the max he should at least get the person 30 to 50m in front of him

it would really give atmosphere to missions

i created a mission where a squad flanked me and were only about less than 10m away with rpg ap and missed

i wish they could at least get more accurate say a target 100m away with a soldier on full skill get at least 80m to 90m of the target or even 95

just enuff to get a debri and abit damage

[ruff 102]

so with the at4 thing will the deltas and rangers be equiped with them?

i mean if they were special forces wouldnt they get top of the range weapons especially delta

im thinking shouldnt the new delta at least be equiped with a javelin????since wat ive read so far the at4 is a pretty crappy at weapon..and would the ranger still use the current jam at4 my point is is there a future for a jam javeline??

Rangers would likely carry AT4's but I doubt Delta would as they aren't typically used in situations where they may face armour. Neither unit would need heavy AT weaponry such as a Javelin as they are both close-in strike teams trained for things like assaulting airbases and building clearance. Javelins are only operated by small, specialist anti-armour teams which usually situate behind the infantry force and provide cover against MBT's etc.

Actually, the Rangers were the first unit in the Army to get Javelins. Their TO&Es are very similar to that of regular infantry units - they're just trained in more kinds of different missions. In fact, Rangers have more machineguns in their platoons (three) than normal rifle platoons (two) and I think they concentrate AT weapons in a support platoon, along with snipers and mortars.

ja...va.........lins......

ja...va.........lins......

ja...va.........lins......

ja...va.........lins......!!!!!!!!!

its all good

just thirsty for more power

oh yeah a question on jam.....will other mod teams able to apply to add say like a javeline and make it jam..which means they made the whole new weapons say javeline and add its weapon and rocket to jam

[Commander-598 0]

I would like to see realistic ballistics and damage rankings on small arms.

The AK-47 is too powerfull and does not drop enought at range.  The 7.62x39 hadd mediocre wounding effects due to ist stable and non-fragmentary projectile.

The FAL and G3 are too weak.  7.62 NATO weapons (nad the ballistically similar SVD Dragunov) should have good stopping stats over a great range.

The M-16(and all other 5.56 weapons) should have very good stopping power at close range and progressively worse beyond 200m

Same for the AK-74  The small caliber bullets can produce very nasty wounds due to the rapid instability of the 7N6 5.45 rounds and the fragmentary nature of most 5.56 ammo.

Short barreled weapons such as the XM177 and AKS-74U should take a ~%20 performance hit in stopping power and in bullet drop.

I have considerable knowledge in the ballistic and terminal effects of modern military weapons and would happily share that info with any interested modelers.

Thats what I said. Mostly.

The only contact I have had with 5.45x39mm ammo, showed me that it was a JHP round. If it weren't for the JHP, I can't see it doing much as it was so small, I laughed.

[Cloney 0]

so with the at4 thing will the deltas and rangers be equiped with them?

i mean if they were special forces wouldnt they get top of the range weapons especially delta

im thinking shouldnt the new delta at least be equiped with a javelin????since wat ive read so far the at4 is a pretty crappy at weapon..and would the ranger still use the current jam at4 my point is is there a future for a jam javeline??

Rangers would likely carry AT4's but I doubt Delta would as they aren't typically used in situations where they may face armour. Neither unit would need heavy AT weaponry such as a Javelin as they are both close-in strike teams trained for things like assaulting airbases and building clearance. Javelins are only operated by small, specialist anti-armour teams which usually situate behind the infantry force and provide cover against MBT's etc.

Actually, the Rangers were the first unit in the Army to get Javelins. Their TO&Es are very similar to that of regular infantry units - they're just trained in more kinds of different missions. In fact, Rangers have more machineguns in their platoons (three) than normal rifle platoons (two) and I think they concentrate AT weapons in a support platoon, along with snipers and mortars.

I was under the impression that the Ranger's were the Army's Super-Hooah Infantry soldiers. I read somewhere that they are the Army's shock troops who are trained to theoretically "rape and pillage" the enemy's postion regardless of casualties.

I think the Army is kind of touchy about using them in this way solely because no one likes to see the high casualties. The only other units that come close to having this "shock troop" mentality are Army Airborne Platoons and Marine Rifle Platoons, not afraid to get in close with the enemy. As my uncle once said about his airborne unit.

"We might not have tanks, or howitzers, or helicopters but if you get close enough we'll f/cking rip you to pieces."

[Heavy Metal 0]

The 5.45 7N6 round has a pretty good rep becavue it tumbles more readily than any other small arms round and it is a very long bullet which cuts a wide wound channerl as a result.

[Eviscerator 0]

I would like to see realistic ballistics and damage rankings on small arms.

The AK-47 is too powerfull and does not drop enought at range.  The 7.62x39 hadd mediocre wounding effects due to ist stable and non-fragmentary projectile.

The FAL and G3 are too weak.  7.62 NATO weapons (nad the ballistically similar SVD Dragunov) should have good stopping stats over a great range.

The M-16(and all other 5.56 weapons) should have very good stopping power at close range and progressively worse beyond 200m

Same for the AK-74  The small caliber bullets can produce very nasty wounds due to the rapid instability of the 7N6 5.45 rounds and the fragmentary nature of most 5.56 ammo.

Short barreled weapons such as the XM177 and AKS-74U should take a ~%20 performance hit in stopping power and in bullet drop.

I have considerable knowledge in the ballistic and terminal effects of modern military weapons and would happily share that info with any interested modelers.

The ballistics are realistic, we researched velocity and dispersion (MOA) on all the magazines used, the damage is balanced within the limitations of OFP, we cannot for instance make a change between carbines and full length rifles, it would need a different magazine, countering the whole reason behind JAM, we also cannot alter the damage a bullet does at different ranges, its a one damage figure fits all, the 7.62x51 bullets are pretty much one hit one kill nearly every time, sometimes takes a second shot if you are unlucky but its definately powerful enough as it is.

The instability and yawing of the 5.56 SS109 is dependant on the speed the bullet leaves the barrel (based on various official reports, i dont claim to have first hand knowledge of this), certain rifles cannot fire the bullet fast enough to produce the yawing effect (the M4A1 being one of them) making the bullet go straight through, we arent just catering for one weapon with these magazines, due to the way ofp is coded we have to generalize features of the various weapons using them, so that they are suitable to use across the wide range of weapons that use the magazines.

Various reports coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan are repeatedly saying the SS-109 just does not have enough stopping power.

As for our damages:

9mm = 6.5

5.45 = 8.5

5.56 = 9

7.62x39 = 9.5

7.62x51 = 10.5

12.7x99 = 15

In discussions with other addon makers we have found these values to work very well ingame, there are noticable differences without one gun becoming a 'super weapon', as it is there are pros and cons to each magazine/weapon making for a balanced game.

[Eviscerator 0]

the m60 HD starts off using a regular m60 mag, then you have to reload, and you get the other 3 hd mags

anyone else get this?

100th post

Yes, its a bug, has been fixed, thanks for letting us know.

[Heavy Metal 0]

Quote[/b] ]The instability and yawing of the 5.56 SS109 is dependant on the speed the bullet leaves the barrel (based on various official reports, i dont claim to have first hand knowledge of this), certain rifles cannot fire the bullet fast enough to produce the yawing effect (the M4A1 being one of them) making the bullet go straight through, we arent just catering for one weapon with these magazines, due to the way ofp is coded we have to generalize features of the various weapons using them, so that they are suitable to use across the wide range of weapons that use the magazines.

You are confusing yawing with fragmentation.

Quote[/b] ]Various reports coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan are repeatedly saying the SS-109 just does not have enough stopping power.

...and I can produce far more evidence that the 7.62x39 is a terrible stopper.

In the BOOK Blackhawk Down, there is ONE report of a failure to stop by 5.56mm and DOZENS of reports of Rangers continuing to fight after being wounded by 7.62x39.

Here is the most scientific study of the poor stopping power of the 7.62x39

Quote[/b] ]STOCKTON -- THE FACTS by Martin L. Fackler, MD

Madman shoots 35 in Stockton schoolyard; 30 of those hit survive. That

would have been the appropriate headline. Why did the media dwell almost

exclusively on the five that did not survive?

A military type AK-47 rifle was used. Full-metal-jacketed military type

bullets were used. That 86% of those children recovered from their wounds comes

as no surprise to those who understand this particular bullet's wounding

potential

. Those familiar with the international laws governing warfare

recognize that the military full-metal-jacketed bullet is specifically designed

to limit tissue disruption -- to wound rather than to kill. Purportedly

mandated for "humanitarian" reasons by the Hague Peace Conference of 1899, this

type of bullet actually proves to be more effective for most warfare. It

removes not only the one hit from the ranks of the combatants, but also those

needed to care for him.

Full-metal-jacketed bullets

are prohibited for hunting; they are too likely

to wound rather than kill. Most full-metal-jacketed AK-47 bullets do not deform

significantly on striking the body, unless they strike bone. They

characteristically travel point-forward until they penetrate 9 to 10 inches of

tissue (if a bullet yaws, turning sideways during its tissue path, it causes

increased disruption). This means that most AK-47 shots will pass through the

body causing no greater damage that produced by handgun bullets. The limi

ted

tissue disruption produced by this weapon in the Stockton schoolyard is

consistent with well documented data from Vietnam (the Wound Data and Munitions

Effectiveness Team collected approximately 700 cases of AK-47 hits), as well as

with controlled research studies from various wound ballistics laboratories.

To put the 17 January 1989 Stockton incident in context, it must be

compared with past shootings:

1. Only four of the eleven shot at the ESL Co. in Sunnyvale, CA, on 16

February 1988,

survived. The weapon was a 12 gauge shotgun.

2. Only eleven of the thirty-two shot in the MacDonalds (24 July 1984, San

Ysidro, CA) survived. Of the three weapons used, the deadliest weapon by far

was a pump-action 12 gauge shotgun.

The overwhelming majority of the media coverage of the Stockton shooting

has consisted of misstatements, exaggerations and inappropriate comparisons.

It is ironic, in this country where firearms have played such a prominent

historic role, that the general kn

owledge of weapon effects has become so

distorted. Cinema and TV accounts of shootings constantly distort and

exaggerate bullet effect. When shot, people do not get knocked backwards by the

bullet; nor do they become instantly incapacitated, as usually depicted.

False expectations resulting from these misleading performances have

confused crime scene investigators, law enforcement and military trainers, and

our courts of law. Exaggerations of weapon effects in the post Vietnam era even

affect

ed wound treatment adversely. It is just within the past year, that these

errors in military treatment doctrine have been corrected ("Emergency War

Surgery - NATO Handbook", Washington, DC, GPO, 1988).

Television accounts showing assault rifles exploding watermelons, newspaper

descriptions comparing their effects to "a grenade exploding in the abdomen,"

and describing organs being destroyed and bones pulverized by apparently magic

"shock waves" from these "high-velocity" bullets must cause the t

hinking

individual to ask: If these rifles really cause such effects, how is it possible

that thirty children (actually 29 children and one teacher) hit in that Stockton

schoolyard survived?

The effects of the media frenzy have been to produce at least a four-fold

increase in the number of AK-47's in California. This immense demand has drawn

stocks of these weapons from all over the USA and abroad. If producers of these

weapons had advertised their effects as portrayed by the media, they would

be

liable to prosecution under our truth in advertising laws. When the same

misinformation is presented by the "free press" it is apparently perfectly

legal.

These are the facts. Why have you not seen them in the reports of this

incident? Ask the media. Ask them also about accountability and

responsibility. Corrections have been offered, in writing, to the "New York

Times", the "San Francisco Examiner", and the "Oakland Tribune", with no

response. Phone conversations with media sources m

ade clear their preference

for the more dramatic misconceptions and exaggerations over verified scientific

facts.

Everyone with a political axe to grind that can be even remotely related to

the Stockton schoolyard shooting is coming out of the woodwork for their share

of the free publicity ride on the media-produced emotional frenzy roller-

coaster. It's really sad, if not downright disrespectful, to see the deaths of

those children used to produce the lynch-mob/three-ring-circus atmosphere ext

ant

recently in the California State Legislature.

The lack of any comprehensive data on gunshot wounds (incidence related to

weapon type, bullet type, outcome, etc.) has long been a serious handicap in

considering how to approach the gun problem. The situation has now been

compounded by unprecedented media zeal. Zeal mixed with misinformation is a

prescription for disaster. The exaggerations used to whip up their emotional

frenzy have, at the same time, deprived the public of the established

facts

about weapon effects.

Gunshot wounds pose a serious problem. Any sensible solution demands sober

consideration of valid data on wound frequency, severity, circumstances, and

treatment. Considering the many thousands of shootings in our urban areas each

year, competent collection of these data on a national basis could, in a short

time, define the problem realistically and objectively. Both sides of the gun

control argument should replace confrontation with cooperation by jointly

sponso

ring a National Gunshot Wound Study. Valid, objective data might then

replace uninformed exaggeration and hysteria as a guide to action.

The assault rifle fiasco brings to light a far more basic problem: Who is

to protect the public from a zealous media whose "cause" takes them beyond bias

to falsehood and fabrication?

FACTS Martin L. Fackler, MD, FACS

1. Military full-metal-jacketed bullets, such as those used on the Stockton

schoolyard, are des

igned to limit tissue disruption -- to wound rather than

kill. In warfare, this bullet is effective: it removes not only those hit from

the ranks of the combatants, but also others needed to care for them. These

bullets are prohibited for hunting because they lack killing power. Bullet

type, not weapon type, is the critical factor in determining the amount of body

tissue disrupted.

2. Most full-metal-jacketed AK-47 bullets do not deform unless they strike

bone. They travel point-forward throu

gh 9 to 10 inches of tissue before they

yaw (turn sideways, and strike more tissue). Thus, these bullets generally

cause no greater damage than handgun bullets. The results from the Stockton

schoolyard (35 hit, 30 survivors) are consistent with data from Vietnam (700

cases of AK-47 hits were studied in detail), as well as with studies from wound

ballistics laboratories.

3. To put the 17 January 1989 Stockton shooting in context:

A. Only four of the eleven shot by Richard Farley at

the ESL Co. in

Sunnyvale, CA, on 16 February 1988, survived. The weapon was a

12 gauge shotgun.

B. Only seven of the twenty-one shot by Christian Dornier on 12 July

1989, in Luxiol, France, survived. The weapon was a 12 gauge

shotgun.

C. Twelve of the twenty shot by Joseph Wesbecker on 14 September

1989, in Louisville, KY, survived. The weapon was an AK-47 rifle

(which he had boug

ht in May or June 1989).

D. Thirty of the thirty-five shot by Patrick Purdy in Stockton

survived. The weapon was an AK-47 rifle.

SHOTGUN -- 33% survived

RIFLE -- 76% survived

4. The overwhelming majority of the Stockton shooting media coverage has

consisted of misstatements and exaggerations. Television reports showing

assault rifles exploding watermelons, newspaper descriptions comparing their

effects to "a grenade exploding in th

e abdomen", and describing organs being

destroyed and bones pulverized by apparently magic "shock waves" from these

"high-velocity" bullets must cause the thinking individual to ask: if these

rifles cause such effects, how is it possible that 30 out of the 35 hit on the

Stockton schoolyard survived?

5. The result of the media created frenzy, in California, has been more than a

four-fold increase the number of AK-47s, AR-15s, etc. despite the tripling of

their price.

6. Good sense demands that

any action be supported by historical precedent.

"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather

startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less

when there were no controls of any sort... Half a century of strict

controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this

class of weapon in crime than ever before."

Greenwood, C. "firearms Control", London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972

p.243.

N

ot only have the many thousands of gun laws in the USA failed to have the

desired effect, they have been counterproductive.

7. Near total noncompliance has resulted from "assault rifle" laws passed in

California. Recent reports from Denver also indicate massive noncompliance.

Our law enforcement judicial system can ill afford the weakening resulting from

such wholesale noncompliance.

8. The first step in any rational approach is defining a problem's magnitude

and scope. Is the total number

of deaths caused by firearms (the often cited

30,000 per year), including suicides (over one-half of the total), felons killed

while committing a crime, terrorist hostage takers killed by police, killings in

self-defense, hunting accidents, etc. an appropriate focus? Or are we primarily

interested in the criminal use of firearms? Whatever the scope decided upon,

both sides must confine their figures to it alone in order to avoid the

distortions and inconsistencies ("comparing apples and oranges") t

hat have been

conspicuous in previous "gun" debates.

9. Lack of any comprehensive, reliable data on gunshot wounds (incidence

related to weapon type, bullet type, treatment, outcome, etc.) is a serious

handicap. Media distortions have created an emotional frenzy and, at the same

time, deprived the public of the established facts about bullet effects.

Sensible problem solving requires sober consideration of valid data. Competent

collection of data from urban shootings could define the problem r

ealistically

and objectively. Instead of wasting millions of dollars fighting each other,

both sides of the gun control dispute should jointly sponsor an ongoing National

Gunshot Wound Study. Valid, objective data might then replace uninformed

exaggeration, bias, and hysteria as a guide to action.

WOUNDING EFFECTS OF THE AK-47 RIFLE USED BY PATRICK PURDY IN THE STOCKTON

SCHOOLYARD SHOOTING OF 17 JANUARY 1989

by Fackler, M.L., Malinowski, J. A., Hoxie, S.W., Jason, A.

ABSTRACT

The limited disruption produced in tissue simulant by the rifle and bullets used

in the Stockton schoolyard shooting is entirely consistent with the autopsy

reports of the five children who died from their wounds. It is also entirely

consistent with well documented battlefield studies and with previous tissue

simulant studies from many laboratories It is inconsistent with many

exaggerated accounts of "assault rifle" wounding effects described by the media

in the

aftermath of this incident. This information should be documented for

the historical record. However, the critical reason for correcting the

misconceptions produced by the media reaction to this incident is to prevent

injurious distortion of gunshot wound treatment.

KEY WORDS -- wound ballistics, military rifle bullets, assault rifle, ballistic

injury, wound treatment.

Wounding effects -- AK-47 Rifle -- 2

On 17 January 1989 Patrick Purdy used a semi-automatic AK-47 Chines

e

military type rifle (Norinco, serial #MS010963) to fire 104 shots into a

schoolyard filled with children in Stockton, California. All of the bullets

that he fired were 124 grain full-metal-jacketed military type loaded in 7.62 X

39 mm cartridges, made by the Federal Cartridge Company, Anoka, Minnesota

(documented in the Stockton Criminalistics Laboratory by identification of the

empty cartridge cases recovered from the crime scene). Thirty-five of the

individuals in the school

yard were injured by Purdy's bullets. Thirty of the

thirty-five wounded were treated in eight hospitals and survived their wounds.

Five died on the schoolyard.

The media seized on the Stockton incident with sensationalistic zeal.

Distortions, exaggerations and uninformed assumptions were presented as fact.

Corrections of factual errors were, in most cases, ignored. The public and

medical personnel called upon to treat shooting victims have consequently been

deprived

of the established facts about the true effects of "assault rifles".

These failings have made this paper necessary. For any chance of a rational

solution, the gunshot wound problem must be approached with verified facts and

competently collected data.

Wounding effects -- AK-47 Rifle --3

METHODS

Eight shots were fired from a distance of 3 meters into 25X25X50 cm blocks

of 10% ordnance gelatin placed end to end at 4 degrees C gelatin tempera

ture.

This gelatin has been shown to reproduce the projectile deformation and

penetration depth seen in living animal muscle (1). Sufficient gelatin blocks

were placed end-to-end to capture the entire projectile path. The rifle was

fired from a fixed rest. Five shots were fired using the Federal 124 grain

full-metal-jacketed ammunition found in Purdy's possession. This was identical

to the ammunition shot on the Stockton schoolyard. One shot each was also fired

using a Winchest

er-Western full-metal-jacketed bullet, a full-metal-jacketed

bullet of Chinese manufacture (Norinco), and a Winchester-Western 123 grain

soft-point bullet. All of these bullet types were found in Purdy's possession.

Velocity was recorded and tissue disruption measured as described in the wound

profile methodology (1).

Autopsy reports on the five children who died of their wounds were

reviewed, and hospitals were the survivors were treated were contacted for

follow-up informa

tion.

Wounding effects -- AK-47 -- 4

RESULTS

Numerical results of the shots are listed in Table 1. Figure one shows the

five Federal full-metal-jacketed bullets recovered from the gelatin blocks. The

last bullet on the right is listed as number five in Table 1. It passed out the

side of the gelatin block (at 66 cm penetration depth) and struck the wall of

the shooting range. These Federal bullets have a copper jacket and a lead co

re;

they all deformed slightly in the gelatin (bases flattened to approximately 5 X

9.5 mm -- see Fig. 1). The bases of these Federal full-metal-jacketed bullets

were unusual; they had a conical depression about 4 mm deep in the lead core. A

similar depression has been seen in only one bullet previously shot in our

laboratory -- the 7.62 X 54 R, used in Russian and Chinese light machine guns

and sniper rifles. The Winchester-Western full-metal-jacketed bullet (No. 7,

Table 1) per

formed identically to the Federal bullets. The Norinco full-metal-

jacketed bullet did not deform at all, as expected, because its largely steel

core is much more resistant to compression than lead, as shown second from the

left in Figure two.

The maximum temporary cavity diameters estimated from the radial cracks in

the gelatin (1) were all between 14 and 16 cm in diameter, and their location

was at a penetration depth 6 - 12 cm deep to the location where the bullet yaw

began

(see Fig. 3).

Wounding effects -- AK-47 Rifle -- 5

The Winchester-Western soft-point bullet deformed by flattening its tip and

expanding its diameter to 15 X 16.5 mm. It also lost 22 percent of its weight

through bullet fragmentation (see lower right, Figure two), and its temporary

cavity began after only a few cm of penetration, where bullet expansion

occurred.

Summary of autopsy findings:

1. In each child the bullet path passed through a vital structure. In one

case it was the head, another the heart, another the liver, another the lungs,

and the last, the aorta and spinal cord.

2. On two occasions a second shot was reported to have passed through a hand,

and in one case, through a foot. In one of the hand perforations, it is

unequivocal that it was a second shot rather than the same shot perforating two

body parts. In this case, the bullet had passed through the sternum, the heart,

and then through a vertebral body; the bullet was fou

nd just under the skin of

the back. This was the only bullet retained in the body on any of the

autopsies.

3. The weights of the children were 20, 18, 26, 19, and 25 kg.

4. The largest tissue disruption in any of the organs was approximately 3.81

cm, in the right lobe of the liver.

5. There was no damage to any organ not hit directly by a bullet.

Wounding effects -- AK-47 Rifle -- 6

DISCUSSION

All of the full-metal-jacketed bullet

s followed the basic pattern described

previously (2) and shown in the wound profile (Fig. 3). The Federal full-

metal-jacketed bullets used by Purdy are of flat base design and shorter in

length than the military rounds (compare Figs 1 and 2). Their mean penetration

distance before significant yaw (13.7 cm) is considerably shorter than that of

the Ak-47 military round as shown on the wound profile (25 cm) and that seen in

shot number 7 (20 cm).

That 86% of the wounded survived

is not surprising to those who are

familiar with the relatively mild wounding characteristics of the Ak-47 military

round (3). The Russian/Chinese military full-metal-jacketed AK-47 bullets, with

steel cores, do not deform on striking the body, unless they hit bone. These

AK-47 bullets characteristically travel point-forward until they penetrate 25 cm

of tissue. Only when this type bullet yaws, turning sideways during its tissue

path, does it cause significantly increased disruption

(Fig. 3). Therefore,

many AK-47 shots will pass through the body causing no greater damage than that

produced by nonexpanding handgun bullets. The limited tissue disruption

produced by this weapon in the Stockton schoolyard is consistent with well

documented data from Vietnam (the Wound Data and Munitions Effectiveness Team

collected approximately 700 cases of Ak-47 hits), as well as with controlled

Wounding effects -- AK-47 Rifle -- 7

research studies from wound ballistics labora

tories (2-4).

Our study shows the Federal full-metal-jacketed bullets used by Purdy yaw

(increase the angle between the bullet long axis and the bullet path) at a

shallower penetration depth than the standard Russian/Chinese military

ammunition. Ordinarily, this action should make these bullets more disruptive.

However, the children shot were small (18-26 kg), obviously increasing the

chances for a bullet to pass through the body before yawing to a significant

degree, and un

doubtedly contributing to the high survival rate. The slight

flattening seen in the lead-core Federal bullets does not add significantly to

the wound size. The magnitude of the tissue disruption reported from the fatal

shots inflicted by the AK-47 bullets fired by Purdy was, in fact, no greater

than that produced by many common handgun bullets.

Much of the media coverage generated by the Stockton shooting has

contained misstatements and exaggerations. The myth of "shock waves"

resounding

from these "high velocity" bullets "pulverizing bones and exploding organs"

(even if they were not hit by the bullet) "like a bomb" going off in the body

was repeated by the media, in certain cases even after they were furnished solid

evidence disproving these absurdities (5). None of the autopsies showed damage

beyond the projectile path. One "expert" was quoted as stating that the death

rate from "assault weapons ... approaches 50 percent" (6). Another, reporting

on

the effects of "high speed" bullets, stated "Most of those hit in an

Wounding effects -- AK-47 -- 8

extremity will end up with amputations. If you're hit in the trunk, it becomes

a lethal injury ..." (7). On the Stockton schoolyard, the death rate was 14

percent and none died later; none required extremity amputation. Extensive war

wound experience (Wound Data and Munitions Effectiveness Team information on

1400 cases of rifle wounds from the Vietnam conflict) and laboratory studies

with the AK-47 are consistent with the Stockton injuries (2-4). The first

author of this paper has treated many nonlethal trunk wounds from a variety of

"assault rifles". In his experience, extremity wounds from these weapons

requiring amputation are extremely rare. The "assault rifle" shoots a bullet

that is intermediate in power between the regular infantry rifle and a handgun.

Trunk wounds are lethal when they hit vital structures, as supported by the

autopsy findings from

Stockton.

Pertinent to the material reviewed for this paper, the Chief of Police of

the City of San Jose, Joseph D. McNamara, stated, "One bullet hitting a child in

Stockton, took out his entire stomach." (8). Our review of the autopsy reports

shows that only one of the children killed by Mr. Purdy in the Stockton

schoolyard had damage to the stomach. It states, "STOMACH: There is a

perforating wound of the antrum due to passage of the bullet. The stomach is

otherwise normal

. There is no spillage of gastric contents." An unsuspecting

public and medical community might accept Chief McNamara's highly exaggerated

description as fact.

Wounding effect -- AK-47 Rifle -- 9

The exaggerated assault rifle effects presented by the media have had the

pernicious effect of causing an unprecedented demand for "assault rifles".

Estimates from sales figures indicate that the number of these weapons in

California has greatly increased since the Stockton shooting

I suggest you go to www.ammo-oracle.com and throughly peruse it. It is the definitive source of info on the 5.56 cartridge and has numerous photos of ballistic gelatin tests.

[Heavy Metal 0]

...more...

Quote[/b] ]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a single example of the difference between the two (5.56x45 & 7.62x39): look at Black Hawk Down. ONE, and only one, had a negative experience with the 5.56. That has been explained as either a short barrel or the operator not being clear in his recollection. Either way, it is one guy. Then look at the rest of the story. Page, after page, after page of recollections of the TFR and Delta guys getting hit with 7.62, grenades, rockets, whatever and fighting on. Same on accounts of TFR and Delta guys putting down Somalis with one shot or one burst of 5.56. Over 100 US troops went into the battle on the ground. Only 12 came out with no wounds. That means something like 90% of them were hit. Now, since the Somalis were predominately armed with SovBloc weapons, that means 7.62x39 hits; and those hits were not putting the US troops out of the fight. They kept fighting for over 12 hours and made it back out. I went through the book and highlighted every passage I could find on weapon effects (see this page). There's probably over 20 specific examples of 5.56 stopping instantly (or damn near), there are not reports of the operator re-engaging, 7.62 not (stopping instantly), and grenade and rockets not (stopping instantly). Again, the only case of the 5.56 being reported as not stopping is Howe's.

http://groups.msn.com/TheMarylandAR15ShootersSite/problemswith556.msnw

[Gollum1 0]

Interesting reading, Heavy Metal.

[hellfish6 7]

Some reading on the Javelin in Iraq from Strategy Page.

Quote[/b] ]ARMORED WARFARE: Javelin Entertains Fearless Infantry

August 22, 2003: The U.S. Javelin anti-tank missile got quite a workout in Iraq and was generally considered very successful. The 49 pound "fire and forget" missile, is launched from a 14 pound CLU (Command Launch Unit) which the troops found very useful, as it has a magnified (9x) night vision capability. Troops would use just the CLU at night to see what was happening in their area. The Javelin contains a dual shaped charge warhead, mainly to defeat reactive armor. The missile comes in from above, hitting thinner top armor as well. Before Iraq, there was video of a test shot against a loaded (for combat, with fuel and ammo) T-72 tank. The resulting explosion was so spectacular that many cynical observers insisted that the army had some help from Hollywood special effects experts. But troops in Iraq can attest that against a tank or other armored vehicle carrying fuel and ammo, the resulting explosion is just like the video. Apparently the Javelins dual warhead puts enough super-hot plasma inside the tank that everything ignites, quickly and in a spectacular fashion.

But the most important aspect of the Javelin was that it provided, for the first time, a reliable, easy-to-use and very accurate anti-tank missile for the infantry. Earlier missiles were either heavier, and required more from the operator (like keeping the cross hairs on the target for 10-15 seconds until the missile hit), or were unreliable (like the Dragon) But the Javelin is "point and shoot." While not really light enough to carry for long distances, the Special Forces, Rangers and paratroopers wandering around the Iraqi back country usually have vehicles, and often encountered Iraqi armored vehicles blocking their way. With Javelin, no problem. Grab the CLU and a Javelin from the back of the hummer, point and shoot, and move on. If you ran short of Javelins, you could get a few more the next time you met up with the supply helicopter. With Javelin, infantry no longer feared running into enemy armored vehicles. Javelin was also useful for taking out bunkers, or most any enemy fortified positions. Of course, as $75,000 a missile, this was expensive. But unless you can afford it, don't go to war.

[hellfish6 7]

And something about the 5.56mm round:

Quote[/b] ]INFANTRY: Troops Demand Slower Bullets

August 5, 2003: American infantry operating in Afghanistan have lots of gripes about their weapons and equipment. Most of all, the troops wanted everything to be lighter. When carrying weapons and gear through the mountains at high altitude, every pound counts. Same deal if you are lugging stuff around in hundred degree heat in Iraq. The troops have been complaining about the weight for centuries, but with modern design techniques and lightweight materials, there's something you can do about it. The troops know this from lighter weight civilian gear they can buy and use. The troops want the government to buy the better stuff.

There are still complaints about the 5.56mm round currently used, especially when fired by the M249 light machine-gun. At ranges under fifty meters, the M249 would fire bullets at such high velocity that they would tend to just zip through who ever they hit. These bullets are built to penetrate and they do it too well. This would often not disable a fired up Islamic warrior and you had to hit him again. At longer ranges, the slower moving 5.56mm round tumbles when it hits, and tends to knock down whoever it hits. The troops also found the 16 pound SMAW-D "Bunker Defeat Munition" far superior to the 15 pound AT4 anti-tank weapon. The SMAW-D will also destroy light armored vehicles, while the AT4 will take out most older tanks. But U.S. troops more frequently encounter enemy troops in caves, bunkers or buildings than in tanks.

[Heavy Metal 0]

Again, velocity has no bearing on whether the round tumbles, it is on whether it fragments after tumbling.

So far the AAR's in Iraq are showing good performance results for the M-855.

I think the problems in Afganistan were due to shots being made at the extreme edge of the performance envelope of the M-4, I.E. Past 200m and inconsistant construction of the bullet jacket varying form lot ot lot.

Quote[/b] ]Q. I heard that M855 has had serious stopping problems in Afghanistan. Is this true?

Yes.

Though early M855 experiments showed the round fragments well in the lab, out of M4s M855 has been showing inconsistent fragmentation and occasional serious stoppage issues. Partially because of the complex construction of the round, from batch to batch M855 has variable yaw performance, often not yawing at all through 7-8 or even 10" of tissue. This is complicated by the low velocity implicit in using M855 out of the short barrelled M4 platform.

Interesting, none of these reports seem to be coming from troops 20" or SAW

www.ammo-oracle.com

These issues have been noted and are being addressed.

[Gollum1 0]

Pardon me if this has been asked before, but are you going to expand JAM beyond infantry firearms? Tank shells, mortar rounds, arty rounds, ATGMs etc...?

[Eviscerator 0]

I think comparing the two bullets in a Black Hawk Down situation is a mistake, that was close in fighting at very short ranges, and nearly all of the soldiers were using M16's (with 20 inch barrels), ofp engagement ranges are normally much greater than those seen in somalia, also as i said the JAM mags have to account for numerous weapons, not just the M16. We cant base damage values on just the one weapon.

Anyway, some reports ive found:

Quote[/b] ]First, it's highly debatable whether the 5.56x45 mm M885 round that our military employs in the M16A2 and M4 is adequate for military use. Anecdotal evidence from the debacle in Somalia indicates that it doesn't reliably put the enemy out of action unless he's hit several times. Mark Bowden recounted complaints on this point from survivors of the battle in Mogadishu in his book, Blackhawk Down. (This is not to say a torso shot from a single 5.56 round can't kill: it certainly can. The question is when will it kill--fifteen or thirty second from now, or an hour from now? The difference is significant.)

None of this is terribly surprising to many shooters and hunters. The commerical equivalent of 5.56, .223 Remington, is considered a good cartridge for smallish varmints but not, generally, for anything larger. It isn't even legal for hunting deer--which are generally smaller and arguably easier to kill than men--in some states, because it won't reliably give humane kills, except perhaps with very well-placed shots. (In this context, "humane" means "rapid death.") In the military context, rapid incapacitation matters. Every additional moment that an enemy soldier is combat effective is an additional moment during which he can kill or wound friendlies. And although some people may have trouble believing it, some mortally wounded soldiers will continue to fight until they no longer can. That's probably especially true of enemies such as the Taliban and Al Qaeda, or even Somali militiamen, who can't expect any real medical care even if they do stop fighting, and thus have little incentive to leave the fight when wounded. (Their situation is unlike that of our own troops, who can normally expect to receive quality first aid and, if necessary, to be medevac'd within a reasonable time after being wounded. For our troops the choices may be, 1) stay here and keep fighting, or 2) live. For Third World irregulars, the choices are likely to be 1) stay here, keep fighting, and die heroically as a martyr, or 2) stop fighting and die anyway.)

It'd be awfully hard to quantify how many additional casualties we might take because we use a marginal round versus one that incapacitates more rapidly, especially since no small arms round is 100% effective in this regard. But I have no doubt that we have taken (and will continue to take) some additional casualties because of it.

Now, it's always dangerous to give too much credence to anecdotal evidence. Even if the 5.56 works exactly as we'd like it to in 99% of cases, we're probably disproportionately likely to hear about the other 1%. But in this case, the anecdotal evidence only gives credence to a view that long predates events in Somalia, and for that reason I tend to give it a little more weight than otherwise might have.

So let's just stipulate that the 5.56 M885 is a marginal manstopper when fired from an M16A2. The problem can only get worse in the M4. The "book" muzzle velocity for the standard M885 round firing an SS109 bullet from an M4 is around 200 feet per second lower than that of the M16A2. That reduction is due to the decrease in barrel length from 20" to 14.5". (To be blunt, even the 2900 f.p.s. velocity attributed to the M4 seems surprisingly high to me. The barrel is more than 25% shorter than a full-size M16's, but the bullet only loses about 6% of its velocity? That sounds a bit fishy. I'd like to verify it for myself with a chronograph.) If the M885 is marginal when fired from an M16A2, the M885 fired from an M4 is at least slightly less than marginal. It may sound like I'm making much ado about nothing, but I don't think so. You see, if the M885 is even reasonably effective against human beings, it's largely because at high velocities it begins to break apart shortly after impact, causing multiple wound channels, increased bleeding, a somewhat greater chance of hitting a major vein, artery or vital organ, etc. But the minimum velocity at which this will happen is somewhere between 2400 and 2700 feet per second, depending on who you believe. So even fired from an M16A2, the SS109 bullet stops breaking up--and thereby becomes considerably less effective against people--at around 200 meters. In an M4, the envelope is necessarily smaller because the bullet is leaving the barrel at only about 2900 f.p.s. and thus will fall below the minimum velocity that will cause fragmentation at even shorter ranges.

Reports from Afghanistan seem to support the contention the M4 has effectivness problems beyond about 100 meters. Again, anecdotal evidence should always be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, these reports seem to confirm exactly what I'd expect from the M4, so I'm not as quick to discount them as aberrations as I otherwise might be.

So one of my major complaints about the M4 has to do with the effectiveness of its round. But that's largely an issue of ammunition, and fixing the ammunition could fix the problem. (And I'd like to see the ammunition problem fixed, but I doubt it will be.) So what are my other complaints?

First, reduced velocity also makes it harder to hit targets at longish ranges, because it makes the trajectory of the round steeper and thus makes good range estimation even more critical. This probably isn't an enormous problem, because most combat shooting doesn't occur extreme range and the M4's muzzle velocity, while lower than the M16's, isn't a lot lower. But it's an issue, nonetheless: maximum effective range has to be shorter for the M4. (I note that the "book" maximum effective range for the M4 is 600 meters, according to a couple of resources I've found online. To that I say, "hah!" 500 meters is a bit of a stretch for an M16, so I'm not about to believe that a weapon with a muzzle velocity at least 6% lower than the M16, firing the same projectile, is "effective" at an additional 100 meters. Methinks someone either pencil-whipped the numbers or redefined "effective.") And it's not just a matter of accuracy: at 500+ meters, an SS109 bullet--even from an M16--would be quite stable, traveling too slowly to fragment and have lost quite a bit of its kinetic energy. So even if you could hit a target at that range, lethality wouldn't be as good as one would hope. It can only be worse from an M4.

Second, assuming one is using an iron-sighted M4 there's the issue of sight radius: the shorter the distance between the front and rear sights, all other things being equal, the less inherently accurate a weapon will be. Because of its shorter barrel the M4's sight radius is considerably shorter than the A2's. With iron sights this will inevitably translate to reduced accuracy. Admittedly, it doesn't mean it's impossible to hit accurately with an M4; it just means it's harder to hit accurately with an M4.

None of this is to say that there aren't advantages to the M4. It's a pound lighter and 10" shorter than the A2, so it's more pleasant to carry and more maneuverable in CQB/MOUT environments. It's also a big step forward for vehicle crewmen who can't realistically carry A2's in their vehicles, but deserve something better than the M9 if they have to dismount and fight. (Given the choice between M4 and M9 in a firefight, I'd obviously always choose the M4. And since I don't think much of the M9, I'm all in favor of replacing it with the M4 wherever possible!). If the M4 has the SOPMOD's dovetail rail system, it's got a lot of flexibility and some nifty accessories are available. (There's a pretty thorough discussion here.) And at MOUT ranges the reduced velocity of the M4 is probably not a big deal in terms of lethality, as compared to the A2. (But it's still questionable whether the current 5.56 round is lethal enough, particularly at MOUT ranges where killing the enemy right now is doubly important.) Another advantage of the M4, compared to the H&K MP5 series submachine guns that it was at least partly intended to replace, is that the M4 will penetrate soft body armor. Some militaries around the world seem to be taking the idea of ballistic protection more seriously now than they used to, so this is a factor that weighs at least slightly in favor of the M4 compared to pistol caliber submachine guns.

Now, I know the Army and Marine Corps have focused a lot on MOUT in the past 10 years, on the assumption that "the war of the future" will be fought in cities. If one really buys into that assumption, the M4 may make sense as the primary infantry weapon. But personally, I'm not convinced that it's really necessary to fight in cities in most instances, nor am I convinced that all future fighting is really likely occur under those circumstances. So while I think improvements to the A2 may be warranted (the flattop, dovetailed receiver and rail system for the proposed M16A4 sound like a good start), I personally question the wisdom of giving up rifles for carbines. That is why I said I thought the choice of M16A4 over M4 was a good move on the Marine Corps's part.

UPDATE: A couple of points of clarification are in order. First, I don't mean to imply that I don't think 5.56 is capable of being an effective military round, against personnel. But I'm skeptical that a full metal jacket 5.56 can be. Some police SWAT/ERT/choose-your-acronym teams have been using the 5.56 at close quarters for a few years now, and the again-anecdotal evidence has been that it can be very effective. The difference is that most U.S. police departments issue soft point ammunition for 5.56 rifles. Even in the relatively small 5.56, soft points apparently cause a heck of a lot of tissue disruption and bleeding at high velocities, and I suspect they (or, potentially, hollow points or some type of frangible ammunition) would make the M16/M4 more lethal to a greater range.

Of course, many would object that using expanding ammunition is against the law of war. Well, in some sense that's true, under the Hague Declaration (IV, 3) of 1899. But the U.S. never signed the Hague Declaration. Thus, the U.S. decision not to use expanding ammo is completely self-imposed, and probably arises mostly from our desire to see ourselves as good guys. But I have little patience with this sort of foolishness. I have trouble seeing how using expanding ammo is somehow less humane than using FMJ ammo that leaves the victim alive to bleed to death or die of a horrible infection, or burning him alive with napalm, or shooting him with a .50 caliber machine gun, or dropping 95 pounds of steel and high explosive on his head in the form of a 155mm artillery round. War is nasty business, and there's no prettying it up as far as I can see, at least with respect to how one actually kills the enemy. (Restraining actions directed at civilians is a genuinely humane thing to do, but that's an entirely different question in my book.) As for the concern that our enemies will retaliate by using the same sort of ammunition themselves, my response would be that most of our enemies probably couldn't care less about the law of war, and would already be using expanding or frangible ammo if 1) they thought it in their interests and 2) it were available to them. (Some rounds for weapons chambered in the Russian 5.45 mm round used in the AK-74 family are already reputed to tumble badly on impact, which causes much more tissue damage than if the bullet were stable. This may well be an intentional design feature. So in some sense it may not be going too far to say that our enemies are already using "enhanced lethality" ammunition, if you will.)

If there's any valid argument against using expanding or frangible ammo in military weapons, it's probably lack of penetration. These things just don't perform very well against most forms of cover. That may be a legitimate argument, but I suspect that only having to hit the enemy once to to put him down might be worth not being able to shoot through certain materials. (And I'm not sure that a steel penetrator like that of the current M885 couldn't be combined with a soft point design, if we really insisted upon penetrating hard targets. For that matter, there was a time when armor piercing and FMJ ammunition were two different things. A return to that system is at least an option.)

Another point I'd make is that I'm not trying to sound like a cheerleader for .30 caliber weapons like the old M-14. Many old-timers see the M-14, per se, as the solution to all problems of lethality. I'm skeptical that that's the case. It's true that the 7.62x51 NATO round retains its velocity better than the 5.56x45, and fires a bigger, heavier bullet, both of which mean that the M-14 will have better range and energy retention (and thus, at least marginally better long-range lethality) than the M16. So if you plan to engage in firefights at extended ranges, yes, the M-14's probably better. But I'm not sure that it's really such a fantastic manstopper, relative to the M16, at least in the 0-300 meter envelope where most shooting will probably occur. It's got more kinetic energy, but a heavy, stable .308 caliber bullet with a sturdily built jacket is likely to bore straight through its target, doing relatively little tissue damage on the way. So it doesn't necessarily put all that kinetic energy to work disrupting tissue. A through-and-through, 0.3" wound channel isn't really all that bigger or more damaging than a through-and-through, 0.22" wound channel, after all. (In fact, because of the 5.56's tendency to fragment at most of these ranges, it may even be a better stopper than the 7.62x51.) I suspect a lot of the 7.62's energy just ends up being wasted. I did some research on this topic a couple of days ago, and discovered that lack of stopping power was apparently a common complaint among soldiers around the turn of the century, when modern, high-velocity, 6mm to 8mm military rifles firing relatively heavy (for caliber) jacketed bullets first became common. (Ironically, some of the chief complainers were British soldiers shooting at--that's right--Afghan tribesmen on India's North West Frontier.) That's consistent with my theory. I've come to believe, at least tentatively, that the reputations as manstoppers of the old M-14, M1 and M1903/M1917 rifles in 7.62x51 and .30-06 have become exaggerated over time. (All that said, though, ultimately, the bigger the bullet, the bigger the hole and thus the tissue disruption, even if the bullet design is pretty awful. A .50 caliber FMJ round is darned near guaranteed to ruin your day. So at some level it's probably true that bigger non-expanding bullets are better than smaller non-expanding bullets.) On the other hand, the German 7.62x51 NATO round supposedly has a much thinner jacket than the American version, and fragments badly upon impact. If that's true, as this paper by Martin Fackler suggests, I'd expect the German round to incapacitate much more rapidly, and kill more reliably, than ours. But again, the question is one of penetration vs. tissue disruption: the harder, more solidly built American bullet will hold together and penetrate hard targets better than the German round. (Again, though, a steel penetrator in an otherwise fragile bullet might be an acceptable compromise, especially since a 7.62 mm bullet is large enough to accommodate both a penetrator of meaningful size and enough lead and copper to allow for significant fragmentation.)

Quote[/b] ].223 Wounding Characteristics

Ballisticians and Forensic professionals familiar with gunshot injuries generally agree that high velocity projectiles of the .223 genre produce wounds in soft tissue out of proportion to their calibers, i.e. bullet diameter. This phenomenon is primarily attributed to the synergistic effects of temporary stretch cavity (as opposed to the relatively lower velocity stretching which typifies most pistol rounds) and bullet fragmentation on living tissue.

Distinguished forensic pathologist Dr. Martin L. Fackler, observed when he was conducting wound research for the U.S. Army several years ago ("Wounding Patterns of Military Rifles," International Defense Review, Volume 22, January, 1989), that in tissue simulants such as ballistic gelatin, , the 55-grain, M-193 military bullet lost stability, yawed (turned sideways) 90 degrees, flattened and broke at the cannelure (groove around the bullet into which the cartridge case is crimped) after penetrating about four to five inches. The forward portion of the bullet generally remained in one piece, accounting for 60% of its originally weight. The rear, or base portion of the bullet, broke into numerous fragments that may also penetrate tissue up to a depth of three inches. Dr. Fackler also noted that a relatively large stretch cavity also occurred, violently stretching and weakening tissue surrounding the primary wound channel and its effect was augmented by tissue perforation and further weakening by numerous fragments. An enlarged permanent cavity significantly larger than the bullet diameter resulted by severing and detaching tissue pieces. However, as the range increases, the degree of bullet fragmentation and temporary cavitation decreases because terminal velocity diminishes. At 100 meters, Fackler observed that the bullet, upon penetrating tissue, breaks at the cannelure, forming two large fragments. However, beyond 200 meters, it no longer looses its integrity, although flattening continues to somewhat occur out to 400 meters.

In his study, Fackler remarked that in abdominal shots, "There will be increased tissue disruption (beyond the bullet diameter wound channel) from the synergistic effect of the temporary cavitation acting on tissue that has been weakened by bullet fragmentation. Instead of observing a hole consistent with the size of the bullet in hollow organs such as the intestines, we typically find a void left by missing tissue up to three inches in diameter." However, "unless a extremity (peripheral hit) is sufficiently thick like a thigh, or the bullet does not strike bone, the round may pass through an arm for instance, causing little damage from a puncture type wound."

Regarding NATO’s 62-grain FMC M-855 (SS109) .223 caliber round Dr. Fackler observed that the bullet produces a wound profile similar to the M-193’s, particularly where abdominal or thigh wounds were involved. Other sources indicate this bullet, with a [steel] core penetrator, exhibits 10% greater fragmentation and retains its ability to fragment at slightly longer ranges than the 55-grain military bullet. [Keep in mind that the M-855 round, because of its steel core, has a length comparable to a 73-grain lead core bullet, and should be shot out of longer barrels (18+ inches) with tighter twists in order to retain good pratical accuracy],

Hollow and soft point bullets in this caliber can be expected to upset and fragment much sooner and more consistently that full metal case (FMC) bullets. In light of this more consistent performance, Fackler recommends hollow points over "ball" ammunition for police use, providing the HP bullet penetrates deep enough to disrupt something vital. However, in his candid opinion the most effective round currently available for law enforcement operations is the 64-grain, Winchester-Western, pointed soft point, currently referred to as "Power Point". This bullet has a heavier jacket than those tested by the FBI, resists hyper-fragmentation, penetrates well and "expands like a .30 caliber rifle round." Subsequent FBI tests of this round fired from Colt’s 14.5-inch barreled Mk-IV carbine bore this out and bullet expansion was "impressive."

Dr. Fackler also advised that the synergistic effects of fragmentation and high velocity temporary cavitation cannot be scientifically measured in gelatin because that medium is too elastic. More Accurate results can be obtained by examination of fresh animal tissue soon after it is shot.

Range Limitations

Federal’s Blitz round, because of its very high velocity, low weight and frangible construction, demonstrated extremely poor overall penetration in the FBI tests. If it is considered for CQB use, it should be fired from ultra-short barreled weapons, such as Heckler & Koch’s, 8.85-inch barreled HK-53. Shorter barrels would bleed off excessive velocity to reliably fragment and produce good temporary stretch cavities at close range. Because of this velocity loss, the maximum effective range on personnel would most likely be 100 yards or less. To ensure that .223 caliber bullets perform as previously described by Dr. Fackler, it appears that a minimum target striking velocity of 2,500 feet per second (fps) is required. Bullets over 50 grains in weight may not accelerate to this critical velocity in barrels less than 10 to 11 inches in length. Tactical teams should therefore carefully select the appropriate barrel length for their CQB weapon, to ensure that the round they employ will deliver minimum terminal ballistic velocities at the ranges desired and balance it against maneuverability requirements [Also remember that dr. fackler’s data is based on the FMJ ball ammo results and that hollow point ammunition will be as effective with lower velocities]. "Bull pup" configured carbines, such as the Steyr AUG, enjoy a distinct advantage here, because they retain long barrel lengths with relatively compact overall dimensions and are as flexible as an SMG in confined areas. In fact, a Steyr AUG compares favorably to H&K’s MP5-SD SMG in overall length and with a 16-inch barrel, is only an inch longer overall than a 14-inch barreled Remington 870 raid shotgun.

[At this point, Mr. Taubert’s article goes into extreme range shooting and barrel length. His suggestion is to have a barrel at least 14-18 inches long for CQB use as this allows for useful terminal ballistics at around 150-200 yards with 60+ grain bullets. I disagree with Mr. Taubert’s point of view for the simple fact that we are discussing Close Quarters firearms, and not long range sniping firearms. In these instances, a barrel length of 6-10 inches is practical for entry team use as it allows for greater maneuverability and acceptable ballistic performance with 55-grain hollow point ammunition. Also, a lot of Mr. Taubert’s information is based off of Dr. Fackler’s research using FMJ ammunition. Most of my information is based upon real-world shootings and actual testing of commercial ammunition in short barreled firearms designed for this application.]

A recent review of major U.S. ammunition manufacturers’ pricing indicates that commercially loaded .223 ammunition is slightly less expensive than similarly configured premium hollow point pistol ammunition. With millions of rounds of surplus military .223 ammunition possibly available to law enforcement, because of numerous base closures and through low cost channels, training with this caliber could be highly cost effective.

The .223 carbine is able to satisfy both close and intermediate range requirements and presents a good argument for eliminating the necessity for the law enforcement SMG. This one-gun concept will not only stretch departmental funds in this respect and reduce training requirements, but in some cases the difference in price between a single-fire carbine and a select-fire SMG often amounts to several hundreds of dollars. The need for full automatic fire with the M-16 carbine is debatable and two single-fire versions can often be purchased by police agencies for the cost of one top-of-the-line SMG. [This is a fact that I have been preaching for a long time. Another fact that Mr. Taubert does not touch on is that the M-16/AR-15 family of rifles use a split receiver system that allows the rapid exchange of differently configured uppers. This allows one officer to carry a 16" CAR-15 in is patrol vehicle as his secondary firearm, and a 6" upper receiver unit in his trunk for tactical entry use]

As a result of contemporary research, such as that conducted by the first FBI’s Wound Ballistic Workshop, some law enforcement agencies have expressed the opinion that concerns about pistol bullet overpenetration were exaggerated. They cite the toughness and flexibility of the human skin in resisting bullet exit and the fact that police officers historically missed their intended targets most of the time in actual shootings. While poor hit ratios and overpenetration may not be critical to some for individual gun battles that occur in the street, these marksmanship realities can become real planning and safety concerns when establishing fields of fire during raids, hostage rescues and other tactical operations.

Typically, these operations involve confined areas, where officers occupy positions in close proximity to each other. In close combat operations, every round expended must be accounted for. It is imperative that that rounds fired hit their intended targets and not pass through them to endanger other officers and innocent bystanders. If misses occur, it is desirable that once the stray round strikes a solid object, it expends its energy and disintegrates into relatively harmless pieces. If deep, barrier penetration is necessary, special ammunition or projectiles [or weapons] possessing this attribute can be selected.

[Heavy Metal 0]

Mabey so, but I can find no evidence whatsoever that the 7.62x39 is a superior stopper than the 5.56 nato and believe it should be ranked below the 5.45 and the 5.56.(or the 5.45 for that matter)

verses...

[hellfish6 7]

so with the at4 thing will the deltas and rangers be equiped with them?

i mean if they were special forces wouldnt they get top of the range weapons especially delta

im thinking shouldnt the new delta at least be equiped with a javelin????since wat ive read so far the at4 is a pretty crappy at weapon..and would the ranger still use the current jam at4 my point is is there a future for a jam javeline??

Rangers would likely carry AT4's but I doubt Delta would as they aren't typically used in situations where they may face armour. Neither unit would need heavy AT weaponry such as a Javelin as they are both close-in strike teams trained for things like assaulting airbases and building clearance. Javelins are only operated by small, specialist anti-armour teams which usually situate behind the infantry force and provide cover against MBT's etc.

Actually, the Rangers were the first unit in the Army to get Javelins. Their TO&Es are very similar to that of regular infantry units - they're just trained in more kinds of different missions. In fact, Rangers have more machineguns in their platoons (three) than normal rifle platoons (two) and I think they concentrate AT weapons in a support platoon, along with snipers and mortars.

I was under the impression that the Ranger's were the Army's Super-Hooah Infantry soldiers. I read somewhere that they are the Army's shock troops who are trained to theoretically "rape and pillage" the enemy's postion regardless of casualties.

I think the Army is kind of touchy about using them in this way solely because no one likes to see the high casualties. The only other units that come close to having this "shock troop" mentality are Army Airborne Platoons and Marine Rifle Platoons, not afraid to get in close with the enemy. As my uncle once said about his airborne unit.

"We might not have tanks, or howitzers, or helicopters but if you get close enough we'll f/cking rip you to pieces."

Yes and no... the Rangers are just super-highly trained light infantry. The difference lies in the missions that they specialize in. Whereas the platoons from the 82nd Airborne are also very highly trained, led, and motivated, their battle drills are almost exactly the same as those of a regular National Guard infantry platoon. The 82nd Airborne is just infantry that goes into battle with parachutes. They might have one or two more mission specializations, like airfield seizures or such, but by and large they aren't too different from any other infantry unit. They close with and destroy the enemy to seize terrain.

The Rangers, on the other hand, are specifically trained to seize targets of strategic and national value - not only airfields and port facilities, but also things like nuclear power plants, enemy headquarters and other rear area facilities. Ranger units usually aren't equipped for long-term combat operations. They're much more of a raider-type of unit, where they hit really hard and either get out really fast or they get reinforced really fast. They jump on top of the enemy, beat the crap out of him and get out before the rest of the bad guys show up.

A good fictional book that involves Ranger operations is Larry Bond's Vortex involving a war in Southern Africa. In one of the best ever battle scenes in a fiction book, two Ranger battalions conduct a night drop into South Africa to seize a nuclear weapons facility. It's really an astounding read and well worth the $5.00 or so at the local bookstore. It's a classic account of how the Rangers are different from the 82nd or 173rd Airborne.