The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Alan B · January 14, 2000, 05:19 PM

Also if you look through the some military Manuals in their discussion of rifles, some time in the late 60s they change from talking about killing potential to a rifles wounding potential. Which if I remember right was the Japanese philosophy during WWII. Since it takes 2 - 4 healthy soldiers to remove and care for each wounded soldier it was felt wounding the enemy depleted enemy forces faster than killing did. Nice theory, until you go up against an enemy who doesn’t care a wit about the wounded.
There is a limit to how much velocity will help a smaller bullet, A 7.62 NATO 147 gr FMJ retains more KE at 500 meters than the 55gr FMJ 5.56 has when leaving the end of the gun. Without getting out my physics book, some of the earlier changes in bullets traded weight for speed but retained the same relative KE for a bullet that had better flight characteristics. The Army adopted the M1911 not because of its killing potential but because if the 230 gr slow slug hit you anywhere, you went down, It was big enough yet slow enough that when it hit, it would transfer all it KE in to the target. It proved to be a very good combination of the two (Blame the Moro warriors the 38 pistol rounds would punch holes in them but not take them down.) Too small and too fast is just as bad as too big and too slow it’s a double edged sword and can cut both ways. There is a happy medium in the center. For the 5.56 rounds to have the same KE as a 7.62 they would have to be a lot faster (like about 1.5 times, its an exponential relationship if you want Ill look it up) but at that speed they would probably punch through the target and not impart much of their KE as damage to the target. The best combinations are were you have as high KE as possible which is totally transferred to the target on impact but does not allow the bullet to exit the target. (How’s that for an answer right out of a calculus based physics book)

January 14, 2000, 05:19 PM	#7
Alan B Senior Member Join Date: August 26, 1999 Posts: 335	Also if you look through the some military Manuals in their discussion of rifles, some time in the late 60s they change from talking about killing potential to a rifles wounding potential. Which if I remember right was the Japanese philosophy during WWII. Since it takes 2 - 4 healthy soldiers to remove and care for each wounded soldier it was felt wounding the enemy depleted enemy forces faster than killing did. Nice theory, until you go up against an enemy who doesn’t care a wit about the wounded. There is a limit to how much velocity will help a smaller bullet, A 7.62 NATO 147 gr FMJ retains more KE at 500 meters than the 55gr FMJ 5.56 has when leaving the end of the gun. Without getting out my physics book, some of the earlier changes in bullets traded weight for speed but retained the same relative KE for a bullet that had better flight characteristics. The Army adopted the M1911 not because of its killing potential but because if the 230 gr slow slug hit you anywhere, you went down, It was big enough yet slow enough that when it hit, it would transfer all it KE in to the target. It proved to be a very good combination of the two (Blame the Moro warriors the 38 pistol rounds would punch holes in them but not take them down.) Too small and too fast is just as bad as too big and too slow it’s a double edged sword and can cut both ways. There is a happy medium in the center. For the 5.56 rounds to have the same KE as a 7.62 they would have to be a lot faster (like about 1.5 times, its an exponential relationship if you want Ill look it up) but at that speed they would probably punch through the target and not impart much of their KE as damage to the target. The best combinations are were you have as high KE as possible which is totally transferred to the target on impact but does not allow the bullet to exit the target. (How’s that for an answer right out of a calculus based physics book)