Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 48

Thread: 5.56 Water Expansion Testing; 55/70gr GMX, 62gr TBBC, 55/64/75gr GDSP

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    239
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by WS6 View Post
    The lung lobes hit by a 5.56 expanding round turn out looking more or less like the aftermath of a nosebleed blown into the toilet. Several inches around the bullet path. The lungs i hit with a 12g DP federal flat nose slug looked healthy right up to the cookie cutter 3/4" hole in them. I prefer to damage stuff more. I feel, looking at tissues hit with both low and high velocity bullets with flattish meplats, that velocities in the 2000s are far superior.

    But seriously...go do it yourself! Nothing beats doing. Internet forums and he said she said pale in comparison to holding that tissue yourself...and the venison YOU get to eat
    This is probably a dumb question so please excuse it, but are you saying an expanding 5.56 round does more damage then a 12ga?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,762
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock9mm1990 View Post
    This is probably a dumb question so please excuse it, but are you saying an expanding 5.56 round does more damage then a 12ga?
    When compared to the 1oz Federal LE DP slug, absolutely. It turns lungs to soup and ruptures ventricles. The 12ga slug cookie-cuttered through, damaging only an area 3/4" across. Had I used an expanding or fragmenting type slug, my opinion may well differ. When I field dress a deer I've shot with 5.56, I fish a soupy mess out of the chest. When I field dress one I've shot with the slug mentioned above, I remove in-tact organs with a hole through them.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,422
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Im not sure what useful information this type of test can provide other than demonstrating these bullets can penetrate thin plastic and expand in water. Certainly Ballistic gelatin, ClearBallistics Gel simulant, and properly prepared wetpack in that order serve as a more appropriate and accurate test medium.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,364
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by WS6 View Post
    When compared to the 1oz Federal LE DP slug, absolutely. It turns lungs to soup and ruptures ventricles. The 12ga slug cookie-cuttered through, damaging only an area 3/4" across. Had I used an expanding or fragmenting type slug, my opinion may well differ. When I field dress a deer I've shot with 5.56, I fish a soupy mess out of the chest. When I field dress one I've shot with the slug mentioned above, I remove in-tact organs with a hole through them.
    I've 'been present' with that exact slug was used on an adult male. Your description comparing the two (5.56/12g) is accurate.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "That thing looks about as enjoyable as a bowl of exploding dicks." - Magic_Salad0892

    "The body cannot go where the mind has not already been."

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,364
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightvisionary View Post
    Im not sure what useful information this type of test can provide other than demonstrating these bullets can penetrate thin plastic and expand in water. Certainly Ballistic gelatin, ClearBallistics Gel simulant, and properly prepared wetpack in that order serve as a more appropriate and accurate test medium.
    See the 2nd and 3rd sentences in the first post. And save your typing.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "That thing looks about as enjoyable as a bowl of exploding dicks." - Magic_Salad0892

    "The body cannot go where the mind has not already been."

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,422
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post
    See the 2nd and 3rd sentences in the first post. And save your typing.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I have and your test isn't accurate for comparative purposes because it has no measurable correlation with body tissue. From your tests can you tell us which bullets meet or exceed FBI penetration requirements? If so by how much. Is it possible that the bullets that you feel excelled in your tests actually exhibited over penetration? Really I am surprised a water jug test is even permitted here.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,364
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightvisionary View Post
    I have and your test isn't accurate for comparative purposes because it has no measurable correlation with body tissue. From your tests can you tell us which bullets meet or exceed FBI penetration requirements? If so by how much. Is it possible that the bullets that you feel excelled in your tests actually exhibited over penetration? Really I am surprised a water jug test is even permitted here.
    You've created a straw man.

    The data I have provided is valid for internal comparison between other water tests and amongst the six rounds I have used.

    I have seen fully half of these rounds used on real people. I have seen all of them tested into calibrated ballistic gelatin. I have also used all of them (except for the 55gr GDSP) to take game that I have field dressed.

    Next, we ALREADY KNOW how the rounds perform in the FBI battery of tests. And it happens to correlate more strongly to these simple field activities (in terms of expansion and percentage of medium traversed) than your condescending comments would lead a casual reader to believe. All of that data has been public domain for years, and I embrace ALL OF IT. Also consider that building a correlated body of data can assist other shooters in making preliminary field evaluations of ammo selections prior to their participating in structured, formal terminal ballistics testing (which should not be forgone, nor have I tendered this argument to any degree).

    You're clearly untroubled by what you haven't read in my posts, and that's fine. However, don't expect to set up a straw man in this thread and then attempt to sully me over it. That's not going to happen.

    I'll end with a few reposts of quotes from this forum from 2011:

    *************

    "When a bullet is penetrating any material (tissue, water, air, wood, etc.), the total force the bullet exerts on the material is the same as the total force the material exerts on the bullet (this is Newton’s Third Law of Motion). These forces may be represented as a combination of shear forces and inertial forces (don’t be concerned if these words sound too technical – the concepts are easy). Shear force may be thought of as the force that resists deformation; if you push on a wall you are creating shear forces in the wall material that resist your push. If you push your hand down very slowly on a water surface, you feel no resisting force; this is true because a liquid cannot support a shear force….

    "You can fan your hand back and forth in air quite rapidly because there seems to be no resistance, but a similar fanning motion cannot be done nearly as rapidly underwater because moving the water can take all the strength you can muster. The forces that resist the movement of your hand in water are inertial forces….

    "A bullet penetrating a soft solid (tissue or a tissue simulant like gelatin) meets resistance that is a combination of shear forces and inertial forces….

    "…Anyone who has worked with gelatin knows that a finger can be pushed into gelatin with a force of only a few pounds; this force is similar to the resistance to a finger poked into the stomach, but the tissue does not fracture as easily as gelatin does. A finger poked into water does not meet this kind of resistance, which is due to shear forces. Penetration of a 9mm bullet at 1000 ft/sec is resisted by an inertial force of about 800 pounds; it is obvious that the presence or absence of a 3 to 5 pound shear force makes no practical difference in the penetration at this velocity. This also explains why the fact that gelatin fractures more easily than tissue does is not important.

    "The extension of these dynamics to soft tissue variation is obvious. Different types of tissue present different resistance to finger probing by a surgeon, but the surgeon is not probing at 1000 ft/sec. Different tissue types do have differences in the amount of shear force they will support, but all of these forces are so small relative to inertial forces that THERE IS NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE. The tissue types are closer to one another than they are to water, and bullet expansion in water and tissue are nearly identical at velocities over 600 ft/sec where all bullet expansion takes place (See Bullet Penetration for a detailed explanation of bullet expansion dynamics).

    "Since inertial forces depend on accelerating mass, it makes sense that these forces should be lower at lower velocities (because the penetrated material cannot be accelerated to a velocity higher than the bullet). Shear forces have little velocity dependence, and as a result, shear forces are a much larger fraction of the total when bullet velocity is below the cavitation threshold. This low velocity effect is the reason that total bullet penetration depth is much different in water and in tissue or a valid tissue simulant.

    "As a result of the penetration dynamics, most soft solids with a density very near soft tissues (i.e., near the density of water) are satisfactory tissue simulants when shear forces are not important. However, total penetration depth depends significantly on dynamics at velocities below 400 ft/sec, so most materials do not properly simulate penetration depth. The total bullet penetration depth in tissue and a valid tissue simulant should be the same; standard practice is to use calibrated gelatin to insure this. In effect, gelatin calibration is done to ensure that the shear forces in the gelatin are the same as in typical soft tissue (as described in Bullet Penetration, the technical parameter used in the dynamic is viscosity)."

    --“Wound Ballistics Misconceptions.” (Duncan MacPherson, Wound Ballistics Review, 2(3): 1996; 42-43)

    *******************

    From user "DrJSW" in November 2011:

    "...If you review the history of the use of ballistic gelatin, go back to Dr. Fackler's papers from his days at the Presidio, you'll see that the purpose of ballistic gelatin testing was not to try to mimic human or animal tissues--which are incredibly variable in homogeneity depending on individual specimen, angle of penetration, and organs/tissues penetrated/perforated--but to furnish a standardized test medium so that any and all ammunition could be compared on the same level playing field. Apples to apples, if you will.

    No professional has EVER implied that ballistic gelatin mimics human or animal bodies. Attempting to draw any sorts of valid conclusions from a heterogeneous test medium is a nightmare, because you introduce an uncountable number of uncontrolled variables to your test protocol.

    As soon as you add other substances to the test protocol, you change from apples-to-apples comparisons to what might be appropriately considered apples-to-fruitcake. Did your bullet hit a piece of apple, or a piece of candied maraschino cherry? Or did a fragment of brazil nut plug the hollowpoint of your bullet, limiting expansion?

    Try not to take these sorts of tests too seriously."
    ***********

    So, NightVisionary, you should know better; you posted in that same thread.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "That thing looks about as enjoyable as a bowl of exploding dicks." - Magic_Salad0892

    "The body cannot go where the mind has not already been."

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    24,900
    Feedback Score
    104 (100%)
    The bullshit needs to stop- PERIOD. People are providing solid information and data and others want to show up and take a San Francisco styled dump on it.



    Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/

    Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/

    M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141

    Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    206
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    super interesting. thanks for posting
    On the seventh day God rested; Marines filled sandbags

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Lowcountry, SC.
    Posts
    6,174
    Feedback Score
    30 (100%)
    Yes, thanks for posting.
    RLTW

    Former Action Guy
    Disclosure: I am affiliated PRN with a tactical training center, but I speak only for myself. I have no idea what we sell, other than CLP and training. I receive no income from sale of hard goods.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •