"Small Caliber Lethality" - Article in Infantry Magazine

[BAC]

"Small Caliber Lethality: 5.56mm Performance in Close Quarters Battle"

It's presented by Major Glenn Dean and Major David LaFontaine.

I've read it a couple times over, and while I find the description of wounding mechanics to be consistent with what I have learned of terminal ballistics, I still have a couple concerns about the data ultimately presented. Still, the article has a lot of good going for it and I encourage everyone to read the article when you have the chance (it's 7 pages) and draw their own conclusions. I will refrain from adding my own commentary just yet.


-B

[DocGKR]

Have you read this: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=32989?

[BAC]

Reading it now. SA fail.

Edit: Finished the link, and it's good to see some of my suspicions confirmed. Bad to see that these are the more influential folks.

Dr. Roberts, would I be correct in assuming that the 6.8 loads that performed better than the 5.56 loads were FMJ-types like current issue ammo, or is JAG more lenient than I originally thought?


-B

[DocGKR]

They were Horn 115 gr OTM, with a nose configuration exactly like current Mk318, Mk262, Mk319, M852, M118LR.

[BAC]

Understood, thank you.


-B

[rgrwilcox]

Again...hit what you are shooting at, keep hitting it till it dies.

I think I am going to ban all discussion of 5.56 terminal ballistics from my unit until people have demonstrated their ability to accurately place rapid semi-auto shots in to the lethal area and have demonstrated an understanding of not only the NSR, but how to train for it.

[Lumpy196]

Again...hit what you are shooting at, keep hitting it till it dies.

I think I am going to ban all discussion of 5.56 terminal ballistics from my unit until people have demonstrated their ability to accurately place rapid semi-auto shots in to the lethal area and have demonstrated an understanding of not only the NSR, but how to train for it.

You have my permission to do that on the internet as well....with ANY caliber of ammunition.

[Todd.K]

Accurately defining the "lethal area" instead of "center mass" should be the focus and can be done at a much lower level.

Center mass may give the highest probability of a hit at medium/longer range and was probably good doctrine against cold war era threats. Any chest wound would likely turn a conscript into a casualty but we are not fighting that war.

[DocGKR]

Training issues are NOT wound ballistic issues.

It is easy to train correctly--to start, use targets that reinforce proper hit zones, for example:

This is one of my favorite targets, count hits in the black as 10, grey hits as 5, and no score on the white:



Likewise, on this one count 10 points for two white central zones, 5 points for the light grey, and no points for blue:



This is another VERY GOOD target--just score the upper rectangle and central circle:



On this one, only count hits to the triangle and central circle areas:



On the target below, only count hits in the two white central zones:



On this targets, only count hits on the yellow zone:

[rgrwilcox]

Doc
I definitely agree...I'd rather have my guys be able to differentiate as well. They will.

I had an instructor once who explained it this way;

"There are two ways to 'defeat the human weapons system' with a rifle, pistol or shotgun...one is to drain the radiator, the other is to unplug the machine. Draining the radiator is lowering the blood pressure to zero by making them bleed out. Unplugging the machine is severing the CNS." ie, the more they bleed, the faster they bleed out...the best way to make them bleed fast is to put many holes in them as fast as you can, but don't expect instant incapacitation unless you can hit the CNS