View Full Version : The "less lethal" 5.56
I always applaud Lott for his work fighting the anti gun forces out there, but he's making a claim I have seen before yet have never seen any support for it, that the 5.56 as used by the mil is intentionally less lethal. My understanding is that's mythology and if anything, the mil has been looking to develop a 5.56 bullet with greater lethality that would still fit the overall recs of the bullet used by the mil in the caliber. From his recent article:
"What has been missed by many is Obama’s January 4 executive order demanding that the Pentagon make firearms less lethal. What Obama doesn’t seem to understand is that the U.S. military has been trying to make firearms less lethal for some time now. The idea is that enemy troops who are merely wounded, not killed, slow down their comrades and greatly limit their maneuverability. The point of the full-metal-jacket bullet, which is surrounded by a shell of hard metal, is to keep it from expanding on impact, making it less likely to do major damage to internal organs. The bullets used by the military are also designed not to tumble as they go through the body. And that greatly reduces the damage done by the bullet."
More:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431258/obama-guns-military-firearms-lethal
Spurholder
02-16-16, 11:46
Will, I read the memorandum (link below), and I can't see anything in this particular statement about making anything "less lethal."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/05/memorandum-promoting-smart-gun-technology
He did list a lot of statements about "accidental discharges" and smart gun technology.
Heck, if he wanted to reduce ND's by 90%, he should direct all COCOM's to get rid of their clearing barrels...
ah, the "wounded soldiers take more people off the battlefield..." rationalization. I too, appreciate Lott's defense of the 2nd Amendment, but this assertion has no data to support it. In the copious quantity of DOD docs on the adoption of 5.56, I have never seen that rationale listed. It also presupposes that the enemy actually take care of their wounded and don't leave them where they fall. As my old man said "its an interesting theory, it is especially interesting when a wounded VC stands back up and shoots a b40 rocket at you".
I think he is munging the ballistic performance of 5.56 with the hague convention on expanding bullets.
Auto-X Fil
02-16-16, 11:52
I always applaud Lott for his work fighting the anti gun forces out there, but he's making a claim I have seen before yet have never seen any support for it, that the 5.56 as used by the mil is intentionally less lethal. My understanding is that's mythology and if anything, the mil has been looking to develop a 5.56 bullet with greater lethality that would still fit the overall recs of the bullet used by the mil in the caliber.
Your understanding is correct. Lott is wrong in this case.
Like many well-meaning pro-gun folks, he's looking for loopholes and technicalities to fight specific legislation. A better approach is to take the issue head-on: guns are lethal. Making a gun "less lethal" is like making a car "less mobile". The premise that guns can be made less lethal without restricting their actual purpose is flawed to start with.
As I see from the above comments, as I expected, he's out of his lane on that. I'd like to be able to forward to him some authoritative comment/source on the matter as it's a myth perpetuated for a long time and no doubt someone has addressed it.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-16-16, 12:10
Less lethal to the wrong people, maybe. Between this and the enviro impacts of spent rounds, we are going to eventually be using tofu rounds.
Will, I read the memorandum (link below), and I can't see anything in this particular statement about making anything "less lethal."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/05/memorandum-promoting-smart-gun-technology
He did list a lot of statements about "accidental discharges" and smart gun technology.
Heck, if he wanted to reduce ND's by 90%, he should direct all COCOM's to get rid of their clearing barrels...
But you're supposed to look down the barrel when clearing it right? :agree:
I thought they used fmj because it was cheap, and coated lead because a solid lead 223 will not reach the target, and will most likely be extremely inaccurate if it did, and foul the crap out of your barrel.
PatrioticDisorder
02-16-16, 13:56
I think he is trying to counter the "high powered assault rifle" image your laymen have in their minds. If that average layman saw how puny the 5.56 is, coupled with hard data showing how few crimes & murders occur with that caliber, the laymen would be left scratching their heads asking what the issue is? Then give them a thorough lesson on the 2nd amendment and why it exists, starting with the battles of Lexington & Concord and an overwhelming majority would be against any "assault weapons ban" ever.
I think he is trying to counter the "high powered assault rifle" image your laymen have in their minds. If that average layman saw how puny the 5.56 is, coupled with hard data showing how few crimes & murders occur with that caliber, the laymen would be left scratching their heads asking what the issue is? Then give them a thorough lesson on the 2nd amendment and why it exists, starting with the battles of Lexington & Concord and an overwhelming majority would be against any "assault weapons ban" ever.
Possible, using debunked mythology and invented facts is using pages from the other side that has adopted an end justifies the means approach. We/he are better then that and don't need to make chit up to support the position. Doing so, just gives them ammo (no pun intended) they don't deserve.
Well if 5.56 is less lethal then 5.45 is actually HEALTHY for you.
Restart the re-importation!
turnburglar
02-16-16, 14:31
IIRC I read a article from an ER doctor that stated 90% of people shot with a pistol 1 time survive. That sounds pretty impotent to me.
As I see from the above comments, as I expected, he's out of his lane on that. I'd like to be able to forward to him some authoritative comment/source on the matter as it's a myth perpetuated for a long time and no doubt someone has addressed it.
Something to consider, in the more than 50 years of development, it might have been true at one time. At some point people may have considered this factor, conducted experiments to produce various outcomes and contemplated all manner of applications.
The 5.56 round has hardly been a constant since it's introduction. We should keep in mind that during the same time we were experimenting with fletchette rounds. So in order to determine if Lott is right or wrong, we must first ask "which 5.56 round" is being discussed and at what point in time was the discussion.
As mentioned previously, to buy this theory one makes the assumption that a given enemy gives a damn about their wounded and won't just run on past them. Not everyone plays by our rules or has our values.
That said, I think it's always been a load of hogwash perpetuated by urban legend. I've read "The Black Rifle" several times and nowhere in the development of the SCHV round and it's platform (the AR) do I recall seeing the concern being with only wounding an adversary.
Something to consider, in the more than 50 years of development, it might have been true at one time. At some point people may have considered this factor, conducted experiments to produce various outcomes and contemplated all manner of applications.
The 5.56 round has hardly been a constant since it's introduction. We should keep in mind that during the same time we were experimenting with fletchette rounds. So in order to determine if Lott is right or wrong, we must first ask "which 5.56 round" is being discussed and at what point in time was the discussion.
From Lott's description it seemed m855 was what he was talking about, I'm unclear if he knows what rnd he was talking about.
As mentioned previously, to buy this theory one makes the assumption that a given enemy gives a damn about their wounded and won't just run on past them. Not everyone plays by our rules or has our values.
We make that assumption all the time. In fact we probably make that assumption more often than any other.
That said, I think it's always been a load of hogwash perpetuated by urban legend. I've read "The Black Rifle" several times and nowhere in the development of the SCHV round and it's platform (the AR) do I recall seeing the concern being with only wounding an adversary.
I have I & II on the shelf right now. But that doesn't mean at some point a bunch of engineers sitting around a table didn't contemplate it, explore it and later dismiss it. This is the problem when you talk about something in general terms. At best it's "generally true." We should also consider the target audience of Lott, and at best (and here I go generalizing) those people only understand things in general terms.
For decades most people assumed semi automatic ARs, AKs and Uzis were full auto. So I guess we are making progress.
If I remember correctly early reports from advisors in Vietnam talking about the horrific wounds the 5.56 were used to help push the adoption of the M16.
Also if M855 is less lethat then we should go dig up a lot of people in the Middle East and tell them they are merely wounded.
Just on sheer velocity alone, no way a 5.56 is less lethal than .30 Carbines and grease guns.
The Rangers that first used the AR-15 long before it had a military designation probably weren't concerned with merely wounding people.
We make that assumption all the time. In fact we probably make that assumption more often than any other.
I have I & II on the shelf right now. But that doesn't mean at some point a bunch of engineers sitting around a table didn't contemplate it, explore it and later dismiss it. This is the problem when you talk about something in general terms. At best it's "generally true." We should also consider the target audience of Lott, and at best (and here I go generalizing) those people only understand things in general terms.
For decades most people assumed semi automatic ARs, AKs and Uzis were full auto. So I guess we are making progress.
Does the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 play some roll in bullet development design these days?
Something to consider, in the more than 50 years of development, it might have been true at one time. At some point people may have considered this factor, conducted experiments to produce various outcomes and contemplated all manner of applications.
The 5.56 round has hardly been a constant since it's introduction. We should keep in mind that during the same time we were experimenting with fletchette rounds. So in order to determine if Lott is right or wrong, we must first ask "which 5.56 round" is being discussed and at what point in time was the discussion.
Hardly. Here's this from DARPA (though it was called ARPA at the time)
Through Project AGILE, DARPA purchased 1,000 AR-15s and issued them to combat troops in Southeast Asia for field trials, to prove that the high-velocity 5.56 mm round had satisfactory performance. The subsequent DARPA report, documenting the lethality of the AR-15, was instrumental in motivating the Secretary of Defense to reconsider the Army’s decision and eventually adopt a modified AR-15 as the U.S. military individual weapon of choice
From the original report:
Range of engagement: 30-100 meters
d. Type wounds:
1. Back wound, which caused the thoracic cavity to explode.
2. Stomach wound, which caused the abdominal cavity to explode.
3. Buttock wound, which destroyed all tissue of both buttocks.
4. Chest wound from right to left, destroyed the thoracic cavity.
5. Heel wound, the projectile entered the bottom of the right foot causing the leg to split from the foot to the hip.
These deaths were inflicted by the AR-15 and all were instantaneous except the buttock wound. He lived approximately five minutes.
Does the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 play some roll in bullet development design these days?
This is a long but very interesting read.
http://www.pfoa.co.uk/uploads/asset_file/Dum-Dum%20Bullets_1.pdf
Hardly. Here's this from DARPA (though it was called ARPA at the time)
From the original report:
Dave, I never suggested otherwise. I think most of use are familiar with the same books and have read the same info you just posted.
Any source that talks about bullets causing things to "explode" isn't likely to be a source worth trusting. Not saying the poster thought it was.
My answer to the 5.56/223 "high powered rifle" is the "if it is so high powered why do most states not allow hunters to use it for deer size game"? Surely it can't be "a high power magic talisman of destruction on one side, and not be deemed powerful enough to harvest deer size game on the other". Which is it...
D
Any source that talks about bullets causing things to "explode" isn't likely to be a source worth trusting. Not saying the poster thought it was.
I agree it was likely anecdotal "evidence" from guys engaged in the heat of combat. That said, there *might* have been a little more, uh, dynamic performance by the DARPA rifles than the later ones. The early AR's that DARPA sent over in 1962 were 1:14 twist. This would tend to make the 55gr pills a little more unstable than the later 1:12, which the Army wanted due to the former not stabilizing projectiles in arctic test conditions. That would be the only credence I could give those DARPA reports, and even then it is stretching reality a bit.
I agree it was likely anecdotal "evidence" from guys engaged in the heat of combat. That said, there *might* have been a little more, uh, dynamic performance by the DARPA rifles than the later ones. The early AR's that DARPA sent over in 1962 were 1:14 twist. This would tend to make the 55gr pills a little more unstable than the later 1:12, which the Army wanted due to the former not stabilizing projectiles in arctic test conditions. That would be the only credence I could give those DARPA reports, and even then it is stretching reality a bit.
Without a doubt some of the Project AGILE reports were exaggerated and certainly not written by ballisticians or medical doctors. That's really not the point. It was just evidence that even very early on when 5.56 was developed "less lethal" was not on their minds regarding that caliber.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.