Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: fffreeze220 on January 04, 2003, 10:57:11 AM
-
Why was the US the only country that used "normal" MG bullets on their planes allmost the hole war ?
Every other country was using cannons.
Can any 1 give me a good reason or have a good source to post.
thx
-
They tryed the Hispano but The US felt it was generaly more bother than it was worh, It jamed a lot, so it was not untill late in the war when planes like the Helldiver(a serious pos) and the C hog came to be, but in the later case not to many were made.Even the 20MM's on the P 61 were often left off or prone to jaming.
They also were intrenched becuase of the Massproduction aspect of it all, they wored well and were available in large numbers, it was felt changing the horse in mid stream would slow up the works.
We wone the war by attration more than by having better weapons, look at the Sherman for example a seriously inferiour tank compare the the Panther, but they were reliable(mostly) and available in large quanties.
-
Maybe if enemy bombers were over American skies we'd opt for a heavier round as a matter of routine to knock'em down. but thats just a guess
-
Fire in the Sky has a nice account of the differences of theory between the combatants.
Essentially the US were more in favor of using .50's vs. cannons because:
(1) Individually a heavy machine gun has a greater rate of fire than a cannon therefore you can put more bullets in the air. This is magnified by the number of guns - e.g. 6 .50's vs. 2 cannons. The belief was the % of getting hits were higher with more lead in the air.
(2) .50 rounds were lighter than cannon rounds therefore you could carry more ammunition.
(3) It was felt .50 cal armor piercing rounds though lacking explosive firepower made it for it by being able to penetrate deeper and hitting vital a/c components via penetration.
There's the flip-side argument for the above and it's an age old debate but that sums up the US theory I think.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
lw cannon werent a result for the need to shoot down bombers. The lw developed its cannon well before the hvy bombers were over germany. This includes the 30mm and it was designed to be used against fighters as well as bombers.
The Brits tested extensively the 50 cal before the war and decided to stay with the .303s. The 303 and 50s both had a flat trajectory and could put out a alot bullets. The 303s could put out more. The brits prior to the war were worried about "bombers" yet from their tests figured the 303 would be adequate. And they were against pre war bombers. Against pre war aircraft the diference between 50s and 303s was just the size of the "whole". You could carry more 303s then 50s and their rof was awesome.
It wasnt until pilot armor and modern bombers that the 303s lacked.
The US planes were bigger and could carry from 6 to 8 hvy mgs. With the flat trajectory and rof they figured they could get more rounds on target. But if you look at weight of the 50s on a jug for instance it could take 3 30mms.
The US choice of 50 cals had nothing with range. Range was
irrelevant because effective kill range was figured up to 500m.
That mean hits beyond their were unlikely.
Read these AGW threads
http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14500
http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13544
Heres a link to Tony's article
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
Heres another
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ideal.htm
Cannons were more effective against fighters and bombers alike.
-
Realy If you look at the 50cal and look at the Japanese modifacations to it you can clearly see the 50cals shortcomings. It was heavy and it's ammo was heavy, very heaver for an aircraft gun. The Ho 103 fires a 12.7mm round but it is considerably lighter both in terms of the round and the weapon, but very effective withen the common range at wich aircraft were normaly engaed at, also the Ho-5 20mm Cannon basicaly an up sised Ho 103(which is an improved 50cal) is still lighter. Lighter aircraft weapons like the MG 131 boasted higher ROF's than the US 50 cal but had shorter efective ranges, but this was not a factor realy since they were still deamed efective withen the expected range at which combat took place. Realy the US 50cal was not an ideal Aircraft weapon, although it was effective.
Ho-103 and 50cal round pic I took at the Oregon Militay Museum:
-
IIRC(If I'm wrong, someone correct me) The US didn't just use "plain" .50 rounds. US aircraft carried 50 cal API, a penetrator with a bit of incendiary material on it, to get things to start burning.
-
There is one other factor as to why the US opted for .50 cal as compared to heavier cannon.
By the time the US entered the war against Germany the Luftwaffe was largely fighting a defensive war and they were not using the heavy buffs that were being sent to Berlin. The use of 30mil cannon by the Germans was because of the B-24, B-17, Lanc etc. Had the US been faced with a heavy bomber threat you probably would have seen a heavier caliber gun sooner. In the battle against nme fighters the .50 cal was probably the best weapon for the job. Extremely reliable, high rate of fire and more than enough power for the job. Obviously the Japanese fighter and bomber force never put the heavy fighter or bomber force to dictate a larger caliber weapon either.
However it should be noted that by mid 1945 the USN was completely commited to the 20Mill. The AAF did not make that commitment until the mid 50's.
-
The 30mm cannon was developed before the allies had hvy bombers over germany. It was developed as an anti fighter as well.
The brits during the pre war years werent worried much about fighters when then chose the 303s. The were worried about bombers. The fact the us had 50s and other nations developed cannons has nothing to do with bombers.
The 50 was not the best weapon. Thats why I posted those links as all your points are accounted for in Tony Williams' conclusions.
I will refer you to this thread.
http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13544
-
Get the "Report of the Joint Fighter Conference". Pyro posted a quote from that way back. The guys for the USN and USAAF who made the decisions about .50 cal vs. 20 mm actually have a debate on the merits of the different weapons in the report. It's straight from the horse's mouth.
To summarize it, basically they felt that for the average pilot, rate of fire and flat trajectory were worth more than sheer hitting power, because these are the two most important factors in determining hit percentage. Reliability and ease of installation figured into it also, but it boiled down to rate of fire and ballistics.
-
I think its pretty clear that cannon were widely considered better overall by the end of the war, come 1945 there was only one service that thought they had any future usefulness in fighter combat.
-
It thought they used .50 cals was because there were plenty of them left?
-
In a high-g dogfight, a pilot needs a weapon that has lots of ammo and has a high velocity and high rate of fire. This is where the 50cal prevails.
Early 20mm cannons were crap. They jammed, had low rate of fire, and small ammo loads.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
In a high-g dogfight, a pilot needs a weapon that has lots of ammo and has a high velocity and high rate of fire. This is where the 50cal prevails.
guess he's never heard of the p51s jamming probs under high Gs?
-
Originally posted by BenDover
guess he's never heard of the p51s jamming probs under high Gs?
The 50 cals on the P-51 B were mounted on the guns edge I beleive, causing the jam under high G. This problem was corrected in the D model.
-
cause US pilots were too dumb to ask for cannons :D
-
Originally posted by brady
They tryed the Hispano but The US felt it was generaly more bother than it was worh, It jamed a lot, so it was not untill late in the war when planes like the Helldiver(a serious pos) and the C hog came to be...
Which is why, for balance's sake, things like jamming ought to be modelled. Also, the RAF had considerable troubles with 4 cannon planes and wing warpage, especially when the cannons were fired while the wing was under duress. When the Germans were upgragding to the MG151/20 from the MGFF, they had a prototype that had much the same velocity and trajectory that the hispano did. They intentionally lowered the energy of the gun to avoid structural problems so that they could mount MG151s on the outer parts of wings without worry of warpage (although, of course, there was the detriment to performance).
-
Whats your source on that Fancy? I hadn't ever heard that before.
-
"However it should be noted that by mid 1945 the USN was completely commited to the 20Mill. The AAF did not make that commitment until the mid 50's."
So the BearCat was a throwback? or conceaved priour to the Adaption of the 20mm policy?
" Which is why, for balance's sake, things like jamming ought to be modelled"
It will never hapen in AH, it's a doubled edged sword.
"Innominate"
I do beleave that was the plain 50cal round, after a point, I know they were caried but I am not shure of the mix.
but by the same token the Japanes 12.7 mm rounds were HEI and their tracers were APT, or armor piercing tracer rounds.
This gets us back to the perenial debate of kenitic vs potential engery in the rounds caried, It is generaly beleaved both were very effective in their own right aganst aircraft tagrets, the real pluss in the Weapons like the German MG 131 and The Japanese Ho 103,Ho-5 were that they were lighter weapon "systems" over all more bang and less weight, which is very important in anything that goes into a plane.
-
hes wrong urchin the e3 had mgff in the nose but heating problems caused them to shift the mgff to the wings in the later emils.
As a matter of fact it wasnt until the e7 that the spinnner was redsigned without the whole for the hub cannon. With the f series they solved the heating problem and had mg151/15 then later mg151/20.
That 15mm round had a high rof and being nose mounted its was much more accurrate then the 50s. The US even looked at that calibre.
The US could have saved weight and would have achieved better results with fewer hits if the had switched to cannons. As funked stated the thing with 50s were the rof and trajectory.
Imagine a jug with 2 30mm and plenty of ammo. In online games like ah wbs etc it would hurt the us planes because these games have a greater effective kill range using 50s. In realife range was not that much of a concern.
Prior to the start of the war the Brits tested the 50s and still preferred the 303s. Sakai wrote that he got most of his kills with 7mm. Even against sturdy planes like he f4f he found them effective. The penetration of the 50s against pilot armor and heavier aircraft is what made it a better round then the 303s. Cannon were still more effiecent though.
Inside 300 meters it didnt matter that much.
Check out those links I posted lotsa good stuff there.
-
Here's a comparison of .303, .50 & 20mm Hispano. Hope the quality is ok! :)
(http://www.btinternet.com/~nexx/rounds.jpg)
-
hey, are those yours?
I have a 30mm RADEN round, and 5 rifle rounds, not sure if they're 5.56, or 7.62, looks like they're 7.62, most likely for the SA80 if they're a 7.62 round.
Btw, dropping a 30mm raden cannon round on your foot is not a wise thing to do, its heavy and hard:o
-
Originally posted by BenDover
hey, are those yours?
I have a 30mm RADEN round, and 5 rifle rounds, not sure if they're 5.56, or 7.62, looks like they're 7.62, most likely for the SA80 if they're a 7.62 round.
Btw, dropping a 30mm raden cannon round on your foot is not a wise thing to do, its heavy and hard:o
Yep, they're mine.
The SA80 uses NATO 5.56mm rounds, not 7.62mm. Just measure the width of the actual round to determine which you have. The 5.56mm is very small compared to the 7.62.
-
It is a very nice pick, my hispano rounds are US and are not painted, what does the collor denote>?
-
I really don't know Brady. White paint often mean that it's a training round, whether that's the case here? or it's a HE round rather than AP?
-
On mine the tip screws off and the Prodgectile is empty, the primers have also been punched out of the base of the casing.
It is interesting puting your paw on these rounds realy gives you a since of comparative power to a certain extent, it can be deceaving though, in the Above Ho 103 pick for example a lot of the prodgectile is withen the casing so the round apears smaller than it actualy is.
-
The 20mm round is hollow on mine, making me think it's either a HE round made hollow or a training round. I have seen full metal jacket 20mm AP rounds but they're more expensive. I'll be trying to get one sometime this year.
I have a row of 9mm Parabellum, .38 Special, .44 Magnum, NATO 5.56, NATO 7.62, Browning .303, Browning .50 & Hispano 20mm rounds to show the comparison between them. I'll be trying to get some German rounds this year too.
I know what you mean by when you actually see the rounds up close you can see how & why some are more powerful than others. The .50 is a beast and to think a plane like the P47 firing eight barrels worth of this round is well scary! ;)
-
guess he's never heard of the p51s jamming probs under high Gs?
Guess you never heard that it was a P51 pilot who made a 7-g kill on a Fw190, which turns out to be the highest-g kill of WW2.
-
i know when you look at 303 you see why its so weak and hard to knock planes down with it,,,its not a big round,,and the powder behind it is pathedic,,,i had a british 303,,,and still got a box of shells for it<~got rid of the poor thing,,lol,,,,i see the round having a hard time taking down a deer at 500 yards,,let alone a armored air plane,,lol,,at the firing range,,i would have to stick my site allmost 3 inch above the target to hit a 550 yard target at the gun range,,it didnt impress me at all,,lol<~~its kinda like a weak 308 round
it dont have the powder or kick of a 308 or 30.40 kreig,,,i wasnt happy with the round at all ,,i got rid of it,,because the kreig and the 308 would walk all over the 303<~which tends to tumble at long ranges,,,,people dont realize that 500 yards is a pretty far shot,,,i know at 500 yards you need a spotter scope just too see what you hit and were you hit,,,heck at the gun range i could hardly see the huge blue barrel that marked the spot were 550 yards was,,,,the 303 should drop more than it does on aces highThe 303 and 50s both had a flat trajectory and could put out a alot bullets
<~~go and shoot the 303 at a gun range,,then tell me how flat it travels,,lol
the 303 was out dated by the time the war started,,and should of been updated to a bigger more powerfull round to protect bombers,,good hunting rifle if your in the 100 too 300 yard range,,after that,,its pretty useless<~~its a good round for teenagers who wanna break into somthing with more power,,because it dont got the big kick of a 30.06,but its powerfull anuff to have fun with
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Guess you never heard that it was a P51 pilot who made a 7-g kill on a Fw190, which turns out to be the highest-g kill of WW2.
look up the word, fluke
-
" kinda like a weak 308 round "
that is exactly what it is. cept for .005 caliber difference in size.
308 is just 30-06 updated for stronger case in mechanical rifles.
30-06 was designed for bolt actions
-
30.06<~~way more powerfull that 308,,,my 30.06 will trash my 308 at all ranges,,,they used the 30.06 in the 30cal beltfeed machine guns too,,not just bolt,,did just great<~~and you can still buy them for about 1800 bucks usa,,vented barrels and bypod,lol,,,and lets not forget the m1grand too<~~simi too,,only reason they went to the 308 instead of the 30.06,,was because of controllability<~~you ever try to rock and roll a simi auto 30.06?it will kick the crap out of you,,lol,,now a 308 little more controllable with the ablitly to still reach out and hit its targets with accuracy,,and you can rock and roll the trigger with out ending up shooting the moon
-
Originally posted by hyena426
i know when you look at 303 you see why its so weak and hard to knock planes down with it,,,its not a big round,,and the powder behind it is pathedic,,,i had a british 303,,,and still got a box of shells for it<~got rid of the poor thing,,lol,,,,i see the round having a hard time taking down a deer at 500 yards,,let alone a armored air plane
the 303 was out dated by the time the war started,,and should of been updated
Not entirely accurate.
The problem you might have been having is that the British .303 was loaded to commercial hunting limits for your use. The military rounds are more potent and the heavy bullets of the .303 shot down many AC (and killed hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers). In the BOB it was .303 armed AC that chewed up the Germans; note that the Hurricane--armed only with .303s shot down the majority of the Bombers.
Yes, the .308 and 30-06 are more powerful, but you can load a .303 to about equal a .308 and it will surpass the Krag round in my experience.
As the guard at the Veda Grande drift and leaching site near Patagonia, one of my weapons was an enfield .303 and 1,000 incendiary rounds. I presighted the rifle along the road to and from the mine and I could hit a human-sized pile of rocks eight for ten from 200-500 yards with that ammo/rifle combo. Any vehicle trying to escape after a theft would have been perforated.
Deer taken at 500 yards are few and far between my friend--very few and very far between. You must have had a scope on your Enfield because at 150 yards the front sight covers a deer completely. Guys say "oh, I killed it at 400 yards" but you find the hit point at 200 (or 100 often) and the dead animal at 250 routinely on "long" shots. Deer here in the south are usually killed inside 150. In the west where I was raised you had longer shots often, but I bet half or more Mule Deer were still killed inside 150.
I would agree entirely that the .308 and '06 are superior rounds for all around hunting use, but the .303 will kill any deer in America out to the ranges that the average guy can shoot consistently. Any deer dead if you can shoot and I would not feel undergunned shooting Moose and Elk with one with heavy loads in timber or willows. Shooting loads at industry pressures with 180-220 grain RN loads will kill your trajectory but they are devastating on flesh if they are decent projectiles. Have someone load some 150-165 Boattails for you and see what you can do with it. Give them the rifle and let them work the load up. They are terrific guns and I am looking for a couple pristine examples to have for plinking.
I hear exactly the same song and dance re the 7mm and 8mm Mauser loads (euro desig. 7x57 and 8x57). Commercial loaders won't load hot rounds for those due to the age of the guns but european 8x57 rounds equal the 30-06, the Norma 7x57 loads are sweet. Hornady, I believe, makes or made a 7x57 "Light Magnum" or "hotter" load. Winchester used to load the 7x57 139 BTHP at high velocities but stopped due to litigation fears (someone might drop on in a Mexican Remington Rolling block and blow they little face off).
Sakai
-
Saki, reading that brought back lots of memories. When I was a tenager and into my mid 20's I lived in the country, and Loaded my own rounds for several rifels the Family had, but my two rifiels were a remington model 700 heavy barel Varmet rifel 223(5,56) and a 243 Mohawk . I used to grab a bag of chips and my field glass and put the walkman on and snip squirels out of the Filber orchards after school. I used Surpluss brass and speer hollow point bullets with a consiverative load to maxamise stabality, I could hit squirels at 400 yards. Iwas shoting them out of an orchard whos treas were all 25 feet apart so gauging the range was prety easy and I simply dialed it into the dial a range on the 4X12 scope. I used to laugh at my buddies stories about dear hunting and how had they were to hit at 200 yards and what a great shoot they were for doing it. As far as I was concerned the bigest problem in dear hunting was finding the target, if you couldent hit somthing that big you neaded more practice.
Somthing taht always baffeld me was that the 223 rounds (the hollow points, which had no lead in them) would explode on impact with anything, while the same round for the 243 would almost always pass through a squirel withougt "detinating", I figured the mass of the bullet was more and that squirel was not enoght to cause it to come apart. So I would try and shoot under them or at a brach if the were siting on one, other wise they might be wounded.
Reloading and hunting were great fun, hopefully I will get back to it some day.:)
-
the problem with a 303 is the lack of powder,,,and the enfield we had was a ladder sites model,,,a enfield is a funny gun to target,,sure if you get use to how it shoots,,you could pull of fantastic shots,,but!! when your out targeting it,,you will notice 3 things,,,,at 100 yards,the gun will hit 2 inch high,,,,at 300 yards it will hit about inch low on target,,,at 550 yards,,it will hit allmost 3 inch lower,,,my 30.40 krag will hit about a inch lower at 550 yards,,the 308 will drop about the same,,little less than a inch,,a 30.40 kreig is little bigger than a 308,,and smaller than a 30.06,,but it has bigger round than 308,,so the extra powder goes into the round,, nato in 1957 changed its rounds over to the 308,,because it was closer to the power and preformance of a 30.40 krag and 30.06<~~which know one can dout,,are some of the best all around hunting rifles made
but if you read about 303,,not many people are impressed with it<~~i know i wasnt,,,i sold mine,,good gun for a teenager tring to start out into higher power rifles,,even the high powerd model of it wasnt any good,,,it still travled much slower than a 30.06,,and it didnt have the power,,and the bullet would tumble,,the 303 cassing is its flaw,, its too small!! it needs more powder,,and then you run into bullet design problems,,tring to push a bullet faster than it can with such a small bullet cassing,,the rounds got kills,,heck the 22 cal bullet has killed more people than anything else<~~doesnt mean its that great of a bullet,just cheaper and more used
the british didnt like it much ethere,,but!! they had no choice,,because the british wasnt going to retool all there guns,,just to get a little more accuracy and power,,lol<~~they kept the same round from 1890's till 1950's,,,im not saying it didnt get any kills,,and im sure with 8 of them in a hurricain it did get some kills,, because its all they had!! and they had no choice but too try and take bombers down with it,,it was do or die for them,,,but in all,,the 303 is not a bad round,,,its just unstable and out dated,,but because of politics is the only reason it stayed around long as it did in military service
and yes at 500yards its hard to hit a deer,,but it can be done,,and with a scope and this desart were i live,,its a good chance your going to make a shot like that out here,,,a 303 is a good round,,it just has design problems,,that make it fly funny and not as predictable as a 30.40krag or 308 or 30.06 at long ranges
-
Brady,
Why do you think the Bearcat was a throw back?
Only the early prototypes were 4 * .50 cal.
The production models were all 20Mil I believe. I know after a short run almost all F4U-4 were 20Mill. The first several hundred off the line .50 cal.
I have the serial numbers somewhere.
Also the F2G had an array of 4 .50cal and 6 .50cal. Had it gone to full production I'm sure it would have been 20mill.
-
Bearcat DataHistory: The Bearcat was the last of Grumman's piston-engined carrier-based fighters. Two XF8F-1 prototypes were ordered in November 1943, and the first of these was flown on 21 August 1944. Grumman decided once again to utilize the most powerful engine available at the time, the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp -- the same engine that had powered both their Hellcat and Tigercat designs. This time, the engine was fitted to the smallest, lightest airframe that could be built. This resulted in a highly maneuverable, fast airplane with a rate of climb 30% greater than the Hellcat.
Production of the F8F-1 began just six months after the first flight of the prototype, and the first airplane was delivered to the US Navy's VF-19 squadron on 21 May 1945. The Navy's order totaled 2,033 airplanes, and Grumman contracted with General Motors to build the Bearcat under license, with the designation F8FM-1. Only a few Bearcats had been delivered to the Navy when the end of the war halted production. Grumman cancelled 1,258 of its Bearcats, and General Motors cancelled its entire order of 1,876. Production resumed after the war, and several variants were produced, including the F8F-1B, with four 20mm cannon in place of the previously-fitted 12.7mm (0.5 inch) machine guns; several night fighter variants (F8F-1N and F8F-2N); and a photo-reconnaissance version (F8F-2P). Production continued until May 1949.
At least 24 US Navy squadrons flew the Bearcat, some until as late as 1952, after which some were sold to the French Armee de l'Air for combat operations in Indo-China. Another 129 Bearcats were sold to the Thai Air Force.
Nicknames: Beercat (Armee de l'Air)
Specifications (F8F-1B):
Engine: 2,100hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-34W Double Wasp 18-cylinder radial piston engine
Weight: Empty 7,070 lbs., Max Takeoff 12,947 lbs.
Wing Span: 35ft. 10in.
Length: 28ft. 3in.
Height: 13ft. 10in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed at 19,700ft: 421mph
Cruising Speed: 163mph
Initial Climb Rate: 4570 feet per minute
Ceiling: 38,700ft
Range: 1,105 miles
Armament:
Four 20mm cannon
Hardpoints for two 1,000lb bombs, or four 127mm (0.5in) rockets, or two 150-gal fuel tanks
Number Built: 1,266
Number Still Airworthy: 10
-
F4UDOA, I dont( I thought they were all armed with 50cal's, the Bearcats), it was a question, my knowledge of post war planes, even those models of planes that were in service During the war that came into service after WW2 is limited, I realy dont Study Cold war anything much at all, you might say I have a working or general knowledge of that time but thats it, thats why I asked.
Ty for posting that info very informative.
-
Originally posted by brady
Saki, reading that brought back lots of memories.
Somthing taht always baffeld me was that the 223 rounds (the hollow points, which had no lead in them) would explode on impact with anything, while the same round for the 243 would almost always pass through a squirel withougt "detinating", I figured the mass of the bullet was more and that squirel was not enoght to cause it to come apart. So I would try and shoot under them or at a brach if the were siting on one, other wise they might be wounded.
Reloading and hunting were great fun, hopefully I will get back to it some day.:)
Ah yes Brady, varminting!
I agree, varminting is great fun. I have shot many hundreds of ground squirrels, jackrabbits, rock chucks, etc.
Two different things though, hunting Deer is more nerve wracking and the excitement to get a trophy is powerful on guys so they do overestimate tehir ranges often and they always "work up" the story. I would agree that varminting really sharpens those skills you described and guys who can varmint can nail deer more consistently at long ranges. There are folks who specialize in "varmint style" deer rigs. They soup up 7mm to .338 brass of various designs, layout heavy, varmint style rifles with special barrels, custom stocks, honed triggers, special scopes, etc. and try for long range shots only.
Biggest difference is with deer, you want to kill it so placement is the key. With a varmint hit with the explosive force of the hyper fragile .224 loads, you hit it anywhere and it is a kill. Even close misses can kil small varmints when te exploding projectile kills them like flak (I have taken chukar this way using 165 grain sierra BTSP and shooting a rock near teh bird to "flak" it).
I don't understand why the .243 did not have the same effect, what weight and style projectile were you loading? I would have thought teh 80 grain hollowpoints very frangible.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by hyena426
the problem with a 303 is the lack of powder,,,
a 30.40 kreig is little bigger than a 308,,and smaller than a 30.06,,but it has bigger round than 308,,so the extra powder goes into the round,,
good round,,it just has design problems,,that make it fly funny and not as predictable as a 30.40krag or 308 or 30.06 at long ranges
Well, if I might . . .
First, the 30-40 krag is a .308 diameter round so you can load lighter bullets in it and increase your velocity somewhat with the extra powder capacity. The .308 actually holds more powder and is a more efficient design than the Krag so can be loaded "hotter" (also due in no small part to all arms firing it being modern). Also, if you are loading military or commercial brass you can have some differences (see: http://www3.sympatico.ca/shooters/oddsnends.htm --see also his reloading data for the .303).
If you check this guys reloading data you will see that the .303 can be driven to about the same as the Krag can be loaded up to: about 2300 FPS for a 180 grain bullet. (see: http://www.chuckhawks.com/30-40krag.htm).
If you go to the Remington Ballistics page, you will see that the .303 is actually loaded a little hotter than is the 30-40 krag (see: http://www.remington.com/ammo/ballistics/ballistics.htm) with the 180 doing almost 2500 at the muzzle.
The Krag was loaded originally with 220 grain rn bullets. These are sure killers at close range on every deer in the North Americas--even elk and moose--but they lose velocity and energy rapidly so are poor long range loads.
What type of Krag do you have? Do you have a US Army Krag-Jorgensen? If so, reload carefully because that rifle only has one locking lug. If it isd a single shot, you likely could load or have someone load a hotter roound for you. If you have a Browning Model 95, you don't need that send it to me.
Anyways, as noted, the powder capacity is about the same for the two case, the edge going to the .303 British. Your .308 shoots a 180 grain SP at about 200-250 FPS faster at the muzzle, but the real problem lies in the design and relative sectional density (SD) of the rounds. If you get another .303, have some one load PSP bullets for it if you want to use it at long ranges, but if you are hunting in close, the 180 or even 215 grain RNSP loads are wonderful for hunting.
The whole "design problems that make it fly funny" is an old story applied to several types of military rifle. This has to do with keyholing of rounds on impact--not flight, an effect that is devastating to the target animal/person. Essentially the bullet "tumbles" or goes erratically through the tissue to exit or impact at odd angles creating horrific wounds. Not all loads/rifles do this but during WWI or before the US Springfield had a 150 grain (I think it was) flat point load that did this and it was a sure killer. TR used it on Cape Buffalo! He reported the tendency to keyhole made the rifle a sure killer (I would guess he was shooting an 03A3 springfield).
Incidentally, the US Vietnam Experience early on with the M-16, the high velocity of the M-16 at close ranges caused some wounds that looked suspiciously like keyholing and much mythology about American "tumbling bulltes" and their deadly effect was spread.
Most nations after WWI corrected this by manufacturing more stable designs and today, most military loads for the US are Boattails as this stabilizes the bullet through the target.
Anyway, keyholing happens at the target, not in flight. Any old ammo that was that erratic in the past cannot be compared to commercial softpoints and if you shoot say Remington ammo in a .303 that will not occur in flight, or at target.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Sakai
The whole "design problems that make it fly funny" is an old story applied to several types of military rifle. This has to do with keyholing of rounds on impact--not flight, an effect that is devastating to the target animal/person. Essentially the bullet "tumbles" or goes erratically through the tissue to exit or impact at odd angles creating horrific wounds. Not all loads/rifles do this but during WWI or before the US Springfield had a 150 grain (I think it was) flat point load that did this and it was a sure killer. TR used it on Cape Buffalo! He reported the tendency to keyhole made the rifle a sure killer (I would guess he was shooting an 03A3 springfield).
Incidentally, the US Vietnam Experience early on with the M-16, the high velocity of the M-16 at close ranges caused some wounds that looked suspiciously like keyholing and much mythology about American "tumbling bulltes" and their deadly effect was spread.
Most nations after WWI corrected this by manufacturing more stable designs and today, most military loads for the US are Boattails as this stabilizes the bullet through the target.
Anyway, keyholing happens at the target, not in flight. Any old ammo that was that erratic in the past cannot be compared to commercial softpoints and if you shoot say Remington ammo in a .303 that will not occur in flight, or at target.
Barring distortion or fragmentation of the projectile, all bullets tumble on impact. For more information, I refer you to "Bullet Fragmentation: A Major Cause of Tissue Disruption", by M. L. Fackler, J. S. Surinchak, J. A. Malinowski, and R. E. Bowen, all of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research, published in the January 1984 issue of the Journal of Trauma. Other useful references include other papers on the subject by Dr. Fackler, including "The Wounding Potential of the AK-74 Assault Rifle", also in Journal of Trauma, "Wound ballistics. A review of common misconceptions", published in the May 1988 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, "A reconsideration of the wounding mechanism of very high velocity projectiles -- importance of projectile shape", with R. F. Bellamy and J. A. Malinowski, published in the January 1988 issue of Journal of Trauma, and "Ballistic Injury", published in the December1986 issue of Annals of Emergency Medicine, and similar articles by other researchers, such as "The Relationship Between Mechanisms of Wounding and Principles of Treatment of Missile Wounds", by J. A. Mendelson, published in the September 1991 issue of the Journal of Trauma.
-
Originally posted by Shiva
Barring distortion or fragmentation of the projectile, all bullets tumble on impact. For more information, I refer you to "Bullet Fragmentation: A Major Cause of Tissue Disruption", by M. L. Fackler, J. S. Surinchak, J. A. Malinowski, and R. E. Bowen, all of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research, published in the January 1984 issue of the Journal of Trauma. Other useful references include other papers on the subject by Dr. Fackler, including "The Wounding Potential of the AK-74 Assault Rifle", also in Journal of Trauma, "Wound ballistics. A review of common misconceptions", published in the May 1988 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, "A reconsideration of the wounding mechanism of very high velocity projectiles -- importance of projectile shape", with R. F. Bellamy and J. A. Malinowski, published in the January 1988 issue of Journal of Trauma, and "Ballistic Injury", published in the December1986 issue of Annals of Emergency Medicine, and similar articles by other researchers, such as "The Relationship Between Mechanisms of Wounding and Principles of Treatment of Missile Wounds", by J. A. Mendelson, published in the September 1991 issue of the Journal of Trauma.
I think you are confusing two issues.
The tumbling is a specific effect called "keyholing". What is being described in those journals is normal projectile behavior in tissue. The mediums being what they are, obviously you have odd wound channels, bones or differences in tissue density can deflect the bullet to cause a new path (yes, no bullet follows a pure path through tissue but that is not keyholing). I suspect that pistol bullets--due to their poor SD and flat bases--jive off erratically, I know .22s do--but keyholing is not the dipping off course or fragmenting of the jacket, but rather the violent corkscrewing sideways action accompanied by immediate loss of energy inside the target and horrific destruction. Again, it is a specific effect. Not all wounds are "keyhole" wounds.
Some high velocity wounds have been ascribed to keyholing when in fact they were simply pressure ruptures of the tissue, a ghastly effect of the kinetics involved, like sides split out loosing bowls from M-16 fire. Shooting smallish targets with high velocity softpoints, varmint hunting, often provides grisly explosive effects due to the rapid dispersal of the energy through the target and the frangible qualities of the projectile. These are not in any way, shape, or form, keyhole wounds. Thus to say all are keyhole is errant.
Keyholing and minor tumbling or going off course is not the same phenomenon. Keyholing has always been described as being rather different in its effect and some bullets were far more unstable and prone to same, like the aforementioned 150 grain 30-06 ammo, which I doubt is described in those journals or is it?
You also see "keyhole wounds" on stable bullets when animals/people are shot through the brush so that the deflected round smashes sideways into the flesh.
High-velocity rounds with lighter projectiles have the biggest issues with keyholing/and with other types of tissue destruction. Because most modern bullets are designed with this behavior--instability--in mind, most do not keyhole. That is why modern medicine does not see so many "keyhole" wounds. I can say that it is highly unlikely that TR would have had any success on Buffalo had the 30-06 he was using--an extremely light weapon for them--not had something "special" going for it. The average Buff rifle starts at .375 H&H, with some PHs suggesting that the .416s be the minimum provided a client can handle them.
Sakai
-
I cant be Shure Saki, it was about 10 years ago, I have all the Stuff but it is in storage curently, All I can recall with certanity is that they were speer bullets, hollo point, and had no lead in them the prodjectile was empty, they were very light rounds, consaquently they could be easly overloaded with powder, so in the case of using them more powder was defentaly not better. The bullets for the 243 and the 234 I refer to were the same designe. I used to Try and Frag the 243 rounds like u desctibe above. I did Dear Hunt on ocashion as well, I used the 243 for brush hunting since the Mowhak is a short barled short range type of rifle, I would load "dear Rounds" for the 223 for long range Hunting.
-
Well, all rounds tend to tumble as the center of gravity is to the back of their middle - even in flight on extreme range. They rotate, swinging the COG around.
Wound profiles are another matter though. By going supersonic, the bullet produces a temporary cavity inside the body it enters (it
`s composed mainly of water, note the ripples and splash a stone creates when you throw it in water).
If the round goes fast enough to exceed it`s structural limit while the temporary cavity is still open, like the german-manufactured 7.62 NATO (which has a -maybe purposefully- thin metal jacket compared to other 7.62x51 NATO rounds) or a 5.56 M16 or G36 round, it`ll fragment in the body to tea up the temporary cavity, creating MASSIVE bleeding and tissue damage.
Otherwise, it just leaves a canal varying in diameter between the calibre and the length of the bullet.
That`s why the M4 is a horrible weapon IMO - the reduced barrel length makes the round slower than the M16`s (950 m/s on the M16 as compared to ca. 820 on the M4) - so the M4 bullet is likely to just produce a 5.56 puncture at longer ranges as opposed to tearing up a football-sized cavity like the M16.
Note this holds for FMJ ammo - Hollow Points will mushroom passing through the body, creating a bigger tunnel and transferring more energ to the target.
Must dig up some good links for you there....
-
Perhaps Kamikazes had something to do with the U.S. Navy adopting 20 MMs before the Army did.
-
303 bullet was a fully jacketed pointed bullet weighing 174 grains. However, things were not as they may have appeared. Beneath the full metal jacket lurked a radical bullet design, for anyone who sectioned one of the new bullets found an aluminium tip under the point, which extended fully one third of the bullet’s length. Beneath this aluminium tip was the conventional lead core. the bullet’s centre of gravity was now further to the rear, which caused it to be unstable at long ranges<~and i know that for a fact while tring to hit targets with it at the firing range
What type of Krag do you have?
ill have to dig it out,,but its the military model trash box style,,4 rounds<~~one of the smoothest bolt actions ever made still to this day, military krag actions are very nice:)The Krag was loaded originally with 220 grain rn bullets. These are sure killers at close range on every deer in the North Americas--even elk and moose--but they lose velocity and energy rapidly so are poor long range loads.
now i was hitting a 55 gallon drum at the gun range at 550 yards with stock sites,,and i didnt use the ladder ethere,,,and i could hit that barrel every shot,,even know it was allmost impossible too see,,lucky it has a cowbell on it so you can here it ding when you hit it,,,,,,now if that aint long range shooting,,i dont know what is,,because past that,,you will rarely get a kill even with a scope,,,people dont realize that 500 yards is a far shot<~~5 football fields long,,,,lol go to the gun range and fire at a true 500 yard target with a military style 30/40 krag,,and you will be very suprized with its predicablity and accurcy
now for in close i use my spingfield 45.70 goverment 1874 model trapdoor<~~now thats the close range hunter from hell,,shooting 450grain bullets threw it,,<~i even loaded it with 520grain bullets before,only good to about 200 yards,,lol,,but it would kick like hell!!,,,the bad thing with small bullets,,223,,and 300h,,is they fly right threw there targets,,none of the energry is put into the animal,,,me and a freind went out and shot up some ice blocks,,he has a 300 h mag,,,he shot at the bag of ice,,and a chunk blew off,,,i shot at mine,,and the bag just slumped a little,,,,when we walked up to the bags,,,we noticed his bullet flew right threw,,,the bag of ice i shot,,was nothing but tiny little snow flakes<~there wasnt one peice of ice bigger than a fingernail in there left,,,it used all of its energy into the bag of ice,,and up too 400 yards that 40.70 is good<~~and thats all you realy need,,most shots are from 100 yards out too 500 max
I would load "dear Rounds" for the 223 for long range Hunting
and i dont know about the laws were your at,,they wont let any 22 cal gun of any kind,,{223,,270},in washington state be used for deer hunting,,illegal last time i checked,,lol but could be diffrent in othere states
-
Originally posted by devious
Well, all rounds tend to tumble as the center of gravity is to the back of their middle - even in flight on extreme range. They rotate, swinging the COG around.
Wound profiles are another matter though. By going supersonic, the bullet produces a temporary cavity inside the body it enters (it
`s composed mainly of water, note the ripples and splash a stone creates when you throw it in water).
If the round goes fast enough to exceed it`s structural limit
Otherwise, it just leaves a canal varying in diameter between the calibre and the length of the bullet.
That`s why the M4 is a horrible weapon IMO
Note this holds for FMJ ammo - Hollow Points will mushroom passing through the body, creating a bigger tunnel and transferring more energ to the target.
Must dig up some good links for you there....
Yes, hollowpoints and softpoints do mushroom, transferring their energy more rapidly into the target. This shock value is devastating on targets, why high powered rifles are so deadly with softpoints. O'Connor told a story of watching his friend kill a Grizzly with a .220 Swift. He said that the first shot hit a rib and the light, fast hunting bullet exploded, causing a saucer-shaped wound on the animals ribcage. The second shot slipped between two ribs and he said the bear died "instantly."
I have seen more than one shot though that went straight through the animal--and I do mean straight damned through--always with expanding bullets as I don't shoot people nor do I shoot animals with FMJs. The BTSP 150 grain .277s from Sierra I shot through my .270 Winchester were devastating and always passed through in a straight line. The first deer I shot with that rifle was a smallish specimen, a Coues Species Whitetail on the Border of Arizona and Mexico. The little buck collapsed like a bag of lead, the bullet having passed just under his spine. I hit him too far back, taking out his liver but the velocity and force of the shot pulled guts out the exit wound--which was directly opposite the entrance wound at a slight angle due to the fact I shot him uphill.
Thus, although wounds are different depending on the weapon, the target hit, the projectile style, angle of strike, range, etc., it is falsifiable that "all bullets tumble" when they strike a target. Killed a lot of game that had straight holes drilled through them.
Tumbling is reduced by better bullet design, boattailed rounds reduce drag and increase efficiency over long ranges, but they also tend to be more stable. As you note, bullets that are rear heavy--most ammo, and pointed ammo has this problem in spades which is why spire-pointed FMJ flat based ammo (like the Springfield load I discussed) has it worse--tend to be more erratic. The sharply pointed "spire point" designs were among the oldest "modern" ammo designs (roundnose being the oldest). After WWI, the Army developed an extremely stable, high powered 172 boattail load for the Springfield that was never used in WWII as it was too much for the Garand actions.
Could not agree more re M4, why remove the great advantage a weapon has (velocity)?
Rgr on the fragmenting military type. They are not supposed to do that, but some designs do.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by hyena426
303 bullet was a fully jacketed pointed bullet weighing 174 grains. However, things were not as they may have appeared. Beneath the full metal jacket lurked a radical bullet design, for anyone who sectioned one of the new bullets found an aluminium tip under the point, which extended fully one third of the bullet’s length.
Interesting!
and i dont know about the laws were your at,,they wont let any 22 cal gun of any kind,,{223,,270},in washington state be used for deer hunting,,illegal last time i checked,,lol but could be diffrent in othere states
That was Brady, I don't know where he hunted but yes, some states do allow the use of .22 calibre centerfire rifles for deer hunting. There is a group of guys around here who brag about shooting all their deer with .222s and .223s. One such fellow I talked with said he "only lost three wounded animals last year." Can you imagine leaving three deer with horrific neck wounds in one year? I lost one deer onetime that way when I was a kid, shot him across a ravine with a 30-06, neck shot, looked dead so we walked down and up and when we got there it had gotten up and left. I was devastated.
Sakai
-
I honestly Dont know what the laws are I never baught a Dear tag, we only hunted on our property, and Places we had permishion, I never Actualy Shot a Dear though I caried ammo in case I encountered one, and I spent countless hours on a few ocashions looking for them, but I must admit It was very boring. I had more fun shoting Squires out of Orchards whear their were tons of targets, also we had Vyniards that We Controled the Birds in by Shoting, I Took a Month off of school each year to do nothing but Hunt Birds that would of other wise killed our crops, so for me the tiedieum of Hunting Dear was well just that.:)
I did watch my Dad shoot two dear that were runing with The 223 I mention above, at 350 yards, 5 shots 3 hits, first hit a standing dear in the neck, then the group started to run he droped a second dear as it jumped a fence, one hit in the head, the fist dear got up and he hit it in the head, he was a makrsman in the Army and did a lot of target shoting as we grew up, my buddie and I who watched thsi were prety awstruck, I was like 10 at the time, we knew how far it was because of the field he was shoting across had been layed out for pinot Noiour grapes and was spaced.
Obviously this was poaching since their were no tags invoulved, it was the fall and dear seasion anyway, I must say this was the only time that we lived their that this hapened, It did happen though elsewhear in the country whear I grew up by other people, not to often, I suspect it still goes on on private land to a certain extent.
-
heck most people dont even know that some of the longest sniper shots were made in the civil war{not all of cource},,,they would get kills from 800yards up over a 1000<~~with a black powder rifles with a 540grain bullet!! over a ounce of lead they would shoot,,you know why so accurate?,,because the black powder rifle still to this day are the most accurate firearm in the world,,because they dont have a shell chasing to mess with there path out of the barrel,,centerfire blackpowders burn so good even and strait,,that they made them illegal to hunt with in washington state<~~stupid hunting rules are crap somtimes,,because you only get one shot anyways,,lol,,but if you wanna talk distance and accruacy you cant beat a centerfire blackpowder rifle,,,,i my self own a 58cal springfield and it has know problem scraching targets at over 600yards with anuff lead and power to put anything down
I lost one deer onetime that way when I was a kid, shot him across a ravine with a 30-06, neck shot, looked dead so we walked down and up and when we got there it had gotten up and left. I was devastated.
<~~my cousin had about the same thing,,but worse!!,,,he shot a deer that was runing from him with his 44mag rifle,,in barley grazed his belly,,so all his guts fell out,,but it kepts runing,,it jumped fence and got tangled up on it,,,well a farmer comes runing up,,and says,,that deer is on my land now!!,,and called the cops,,and even know my cousin shot it on legal land,,sence it made it over the fence,,the farmer got to keep it,,it was bullcrap,,made him so mad,,lol
ya and some people dont know that about the 303 its a little back heavy,,its a great round up too about 400 yards,,then it starts too fly funny,,,i know at the gun range,,it would hit 2 inch high at 100 yards,,and a inch low at 300<~~somtimes you got to cutt open a bullet to see why it flys so funny,,lol
-
I honestly Dont know what the laws are I never baught a Dear tag, we only hunted on our property, and Places we had permishion,
ya,,thats illegal even on your own land,,,only way your aloud to kill a deer on your own land,,is if your a farmer and there trashing your fruit trees or somthing like that,,,othere than that,,i think even on your own land,,or people who give ya premission to hunt on there land,,you will still have to have a deer tag,,get caught traveling with out one,,you will loose your gun rights and everything for atleast a few years
-
Originally posted by Sakai
The tumbling is a specific effect called "keyholing". What is being described in those journals is normal projectile behavior in tissue. The mediums being what they are, obviously you have odd wound channels, bones or differences in tissue density can deflect the bullet to cause a new path (yes, no bullet follows a pure path through tissue but that is not keyholing). I suspect that pistol bullets--due to their poor SD and flat bases--jive off erratically, I know .22s do--but keyholing is not the dipping off course or fragmenting of the jacket, but rather the violent corkscrewing sideways action accompanied by immediate loss of energy inside the target and horrific destruction. Again, it is a specific effect. Not all wounds are "keyhole" wounds.
For the first report I listed, analysis was done using both expanding and non-expanding rounds. Initial investigation was performed using anesthetized swine as targets, shooting into the ham at a 90° angle. Secondary analysis was performed with ballistic gelatin targets
Detailed examination of the permanent wound cavity (as opposed to the temporary wound cavity, which disappears within milliseconds) show that a bullet that does not fragment, deform, or hit an internal structure causing it to deflect and/or spall fragments will come to rest, if they do not achieve sufficient penetration to ext the target, in a tail-first attitude, having performed a 180° flip. Therefore, assuming that no deformation, fragmentation, or secondary spalling occurs, a long narrow bullet will leave a larger permanent wound cavity than a short fat bullet of the same mass, although in overall lethality this contribution is relatively minor. What attitude a deforming projectile winds up at depends on the precise geometry of the deformation, and is extremely difficult to categorize.
Typically, however, even with FMJ bullets (depending bullet design and on range -- as range increases, fragmentation decreases), a projectile which fragments will do so when its yaw approaches 90° to the penetration line, breaking into two major pieces and up to several dozen small fragments. However, JHP projectiles, because of the deformation resulting from the projectile design, and the associated reduction in projectile length, produce a larger permanent wound cavity, but because of the increased rate of energy dump into the target do not produce fragments with the high velocity of FMJ fragments, nor as many fragments -- fragments of FMJ rifle projectiles have been found up to 30cm away from the point where the projectile fragmented.
The shape of the projectile contributes to tumbling as well; modern military bullets all possess a pointed-ogival "spitzer" tip. While this produces superior exterior ballistics, it also contributes to the rapidity with which the projectile begins to tumble after impact. The first FMJ projectiles (1885-1910) had a higher aspect ratio, and a rounded tip; these bullets could travel more than 50cm before significant yaw began -- which made them very effective for big-game hunting (the yaw, and subsequent fragmentation, occuring deep inside the animal's body where the vital organs were), but against soldiers, even a through-and-through chest wound, if it did not strike a bone or any major blood vessel, would not keep the victim out of action for more than a few weeks; this effect was remarked on by surgeons of the period.
Some high velocity wounds have been ascribed to keyholing when in fact they were simply pressure ruptures of the tissue, a ghastly effect of the kinetics involved, like sides split out loosing bowls from M-16 fire. Shooting smallish targets with high velocity softpoints, varmint hunting, often provides grisly explosive effects due to the rapid dispersal of the energy through the target and the frangible qualities of the projectile. These are not in any way, shape, or form, keyhole wounds. Thus to say all are keyhole is errant.
Avulsions of the type you describe for small game are a result of the expansion of the temporary wound cavity exceeding the elastic strength of tissue, and are an artifact of high-power bullets fired into very small targets; the effects are not comparable to those in man-sized or larger targets. Wounds of the type you describe for the M-16 are an artifact of the fragmentation of the M193 5.56x45mm projectile, whose wounding mechanism was not understood during Vietnam, prior to the discovery of the contribution that bullet fragmentation made to tissue damage.
You also see "keyhole wounds" on stable bullets when animals/people are shot through the brush so that the deflected round smashes sideways into the flesh.
First, there are no stable bullets; all bullets tumble after impact. However, bullet design severely affects how a bullet will tumble. For example, the Soviet 7.62x39mm round for the AK-47 is a boat-tail round jacketed with copper-plated steel, with a steel core and a thin layer of lead between them; upon penetration, it begins to yaw after about 26cm, and completes its flip after about 50-55cm of penetration. The Yugoslav 7.62x39mm round for the AK-47 is a flat base round with a copper jacket and lead core; this round begins to yaw after about 17cm of penetration, and completes its flip after about 40-45cm of penetration. The M193 round for the M16A1 travels point-forward in tissue for about 12cm after which it yaws to 90°, flattens, and breaks at the cannelure. The bullet point flattens but remains in one piece, retaining about 60 per cent of the original bullet weight. The rear portion breaks into many fragments that penetrate up to 7cm radially from the bullet path. The temporary cavity stretch, its effect increased by perforation and weakening of the tissue by fragments, then causes a much enlarged permanent cavity by detaching tissue pieces. The effect of striking brush to cause tumble before reaching the target (or, in a specific case, shootin SS109 or M865 bullets from the older M16A1 rifle barrel, which does not impart sufficient spin to stabilize the bullet) almost invariably cause the bullet to fragment upon impact, which combines with the temporary cavity stretch to cause stellate entry wounds with increased tissue loss.
For online perusal, I direct you to Military Rifle Bullet Wound Patterns (http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html) and What's Wrong With the Wound Ballistics Literature, and Why (http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html), both by Dr. Martin Fackler; the latter provides a more detailed point-by-point presentation, while the former provides specific examples and illustrations of the fragmentation of bullets.
-
Originally posted by Shiva
Detailed examination of the permanent wound cavity (as opposed to the temporary wound cavity, which disappears within milliseconds) show that a bullet that does not fragment, deform, or hit an internal structure causing it to deflect and/or spall fragments will come to rest, if they do not achieve sufficient penetration to ext the target, in a tail-first attitude, having performed a 180° flip. Therefore, assuming that no deformation, fragmentation, or secondary spalling occurs, a long narrow bullet will leave a larger permanent wound cavity than a short fat bullet of the same mass, although in overall lethality this contribution is relatively minor. What attitude a deforming projectile winds up at depends on the precise geometry of the deformation, and is extremely difficult to categorize.
Well, I am hopelessly outclassed here, our library only does toxicology.
First, you must have seen by now that we are discussing two issues: one is hunting and the second is the widely reported effect of keyholing, or tumbling. The effect of tumbling reached mythic proportions in hunting (and was blankly applied ot hunting with a .303, a comment that "all it's bullets are poorly designed" which is falsifiable), it is the myth I wish to dispel.
As noted by myself, military ammo has often been associated with keyholing but when you say "all bullets" I must take exception, I think that's falsifiable. The Professional hunters of Africa routinely examine their solids and softpoints shot into the heaviest game, you never hear of the "flipped bullet" phenomenon there, I mean, never. We aren't talking doped pigs, we're talking thousands of Buffalo, Elephant, etc. shot under varying conditions. Some styles worked better than others, but flipping solids (these being heavier, slower round nosed solids of proper construction) aren't described (while poorly made deformed projectiles or errant trajectories in game of bullets hitting bone sometimes are).
"Categorization" of "deformed" (which we call expanding) bullets essentially is done in the same manner: examination. The Rounds are not extracted flipped with the mushroomed point facing toward the entry wound, not that I have ever seen. I think that lab tests are spot-on re the military loads and corroborate the anecdotal soldiers and more trained surgeosn reports from wars, but they don't seem to mirror any of my experience on game, nor that of any other hunter I can name excepting those using military style spitzers, which as I noted in the first get go, are precisely the unstable stype. Or less stable, if you prefer. But, that BTs are more stable, as noted previously, than flat-based spitzers is not questioned by anyone that I am aware of.
However, JHP projectiles, because of the deformation resulting from the projectile design, and the associated reduction in projectile length, produce a larger permanent wound cavity, but because of the increased rate of energy dump into the target do not produce fragments with the high velocity of FMJ fragments, nor as many fragments -- fragments of FMJ rifle projectiles have been found up to 30cm away from the point where the projectile fragmented.
Yes, as noted previously by myself.
The shape of the projectile contributes to tumbling as well; modern military bullets all possess a pointed-ogival "spitzer" tip.
Yes, see above post to Hyena or someone.
While this produces superior exterior ballistics, it also contributes to the rapidity with which the projectile begins to tumble after impact. The first FMJ projectiles (1885-1910) had a higher aspect ratio, and a rounded tip; these bullets could travel more than 50cm before significant yaw began -- which made them very effective for big-game hunting (the yaw, and subsequent fragmentation, occuring deep inside the animal's body where the vital organs were), but against soldiers, even a through-and-through chest wound, if it did not strike a bone or any major blood vessel, would not keep the victim out of action for more than a few weeks; this effect was remarked on by surgeons of the period.
Precisely, as noted. Note also that the "through and through" phenomenon you note argues against the "every bullet tumbles" point you have taken. That is, evidence suggests that while many military styles have or do in fact do this, not all have or did under the conditions of use, as you noted. It is diffult to believe that a "keyhole" chest wound would be up and about in no time. Or is that wrong? Surely a chest is more than 6 inches deep, but is it ten or 11? You note the Soviet bullets fired from AKs flip after, what 55-56 cm, that's about what? 24 inches or less? Spitzer solid bullets traveling through 2 feet of tissue would be more likeley to turn at some point, I would agree. But this would allow for through on throughs on chests, they not being 2 feet thick.
Wounds of the type you describe for the M-16 are an artifact of the fragmentation of the M193 5.56x45mm projectile, whose wounding mechanism was not understood during Vietnam, prior to the discovery of the contribution that bullet fragmentation made to tissue damage.
Yes, I had heard this as well, that the original design for the M-16 did come apart, and as noted, this was attributed by some to keyholing not fragmentation. I would assume that uncontrolled fragmenting causes any number of types of wounds, the round being inherently less stable if it somes apart in a less controlled manner than expanding softpoints used for hunting that are deisgned to mushroom.
First, there are no stable bullets; all bullets tumble after impact.
Not in my experience and I have never read of same in large game with properly constructed solids and softpoints (note that I have conceded that I have never shot humans with military loads, although I have read many horror stories of poorly constructed bullets shot into dangerous game: note that it would be extremely difficult, impossible really, to "Brain" elephants if the dipping and tumbling you described occured in the shots on those animals see: http://tinyurl.com/47qs for an example of some retrieved rounds from heavy game, some solids and some lead alloy). In my experience, some have and some have not. Now, I am not a vetrinary pathologist and don't necropsy everything I shoot, but I do investigate most wounds (I eat all my game) and I have seen several that were "through and throughs" and not being in a position to have seen the round exit, but seeing the angle of the hit and it's exit being linear, and the fact that I shot a mushromming round, I can only conclude that the round exited mushroom first, thus the greater diameter exit wound. In fact, it is difficult to see how recovered, "perfect" mushrooms could occur in a tumbling bullet? In fact, they could not, the mushroom would not remain intact.
However, bullet design severely affects how a bullet will tumble.
Yes, as noted.
For example, the Soviet 7.62x39mm round for the AK-47 is a boat-tail round jacketed with copper-plated steel, with a steel core and a thin layer of lead between them; upon penetration, it begins to yaw after about 26cm, and completes its flip after about 50-55cm of penetration. The Yugoslav 7.62x39mm round for the AK-47 is a flat base round with a copper jacket and lead core; this round begins to yaw after about 17cm of penetration, and completes its flip after about 40-45cm of penetration. The M193 round for the M16A1 travels point-forward in tissue for about 12cm after which it yaws to 90°, flattens, and breaks at the cannelure. The bullet point flattens but remains in one piece, retaining about 60 per cent of the original bullet weight. The rear portion breaks into many fragments that penetrate up to 7cm radially from the bullet path. The temporary cavity stretch, its effect increased by perforation and weakening of the tissue by fragments, then causes a much enlarged permanent cavity by detaching tissue pieces.
That is remarkble, every M16 bullet does this? I had no idea, no wonder they are so deadly. Does this still occur "at range"? Say 300-500 meters? Also note the difference in stability of the Soviet BT vs the flat based round, precisely as I had suggested earlier: it has always been the flat based bullets, the spire points especially, that were associated with the worst keyholing. Note too that I think both of our reading and experience has identified velocity as a key determinant. Also, keyholing described by yourself is not "on impact", but rather is due to the amount of travel inside the cavity. Note also that what we arte discussing is not the tale of "tumbling bullets" that one hears at the range.
The effect of striking brush to cause tumble before reaching the target (or, in a specific case, shootin SS109 or M865 bullets from the older M16A1 rifle barrel, which does not impart sufficient spin to stabilize the bullet) almost invariably cause the bullet to fragment upon impact, which combines with the temporary cavity stretch to cause stellate entry wounds with increased tissue loss.
Yes, fragment but not necessarily come entirely to pieces. Many animals have been felled by partially deflected or deformed hunting rounds in brush. It is a poor practice that carries a high risk of lost--or worse, badly wounded and lost-game, called "brush busting" but some guys still play that game.
What great stuff, thanks!
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Sakai
"Categorization" of "deformed" (which we call expanding) bullets essentially is done in the same manner: examination. The Rounds are not extracted flipped with the mushroomed point facing toward the entry wound, not that I have ever seen.
Deformation covers a wide range of alteration of bullet shape, not just the mushrooming designs. Round-nosed bullets require more travel distance to begin yawing than spitzer-nosed bullets; a bullet that deforms quickly on impact into a round-nose shape will have its orientation -- assuming that it does not penetrate completely and exit -- determined more by the symmetry of its deformation than by the bullet tumble.
Precisely, as noted. Note also that the "through and through" phenomenon you note argues against the "every bullet tumbles" point you have taken. That is, evidence suggests that while many military styles have or do in fact do this, not all have or did under the conditions of use, as you noted. It is diffult to believe that a "keyhole" chest wound would be up and about in no time. Or is that wrong?
Perhaps it is more accurate to say that all bullets will tumble in the target if given a long enough path through the target. Even the early round-nose FMJ bullets tumbled -- but for a soldier shot with one of these bullets, a round hitting his chest would exit before it had begun to yaw significantly. As a result, for chest wounds where the bullet didn't hit a bone or major blood vessel, the actual tissue trauma was quite limited. Basically, if the bullet hit the heart, a bone, your spine, or a major blood vessel, you were SOL; if not, you would recover quickly.
Surely a chest is more than 6 inches deep, but is it ten or 11? You note the Soviet bullets fired from AKs flip after, what 55-56 cm, that's about what? 24 inches or less? Spitzer solid bullets traveling through 2 feet of tissue would be more likeley to turn at some point, I would agree. But this would allow for through on throughs on chests, they not being 2 feet thick.
This depends greatly on the trajectory of the bullet relative to the body. Surely you don't expect soldiers to remain standing facing the enemy to receive fire (a lá wars of the Civil War and earlier)? The angle of the body in the prone or crouched position increases the potential length of the bullet track before leaving the body.
I would assume that uncontrolled fragmenting causes any number of types of wounds, the round being inherently less stable if it somes apart in a less controlled manner than expanding softpoints used for hunting that are deisgned to mushroom.
Bullets that fragment quickly, like the M193, create much larger permanent wound cavities because fragments that disperse into the walls of the temporary wound cavity create lacerations that allows the expansion stress from the temporary wound cavity to tear tissue apart, rather than it retaining its integrity.
Not in my experience and I have never read of same in large game with properly constructed solids and softpoints (note that I have conceded that I have never shot humans with military loads, although I have read many horror stories of poorly constructed bullets shot into dangerous game: note that it would be extremely difficult, impossible really, to "Brain" elephants if the dipping and tumbling you described occured in the shots on those animals see: http://tinyurl.com/47qs for an example of some retrieved rounds from heavy game, some solids and some lead alloy).
Read the description of the track of the rounds fired at the buffalo: "The first had broken ribs, traversed the whole lung and heart area hitting the opposite side lower shoulder bones and stopped under the hide; The second broke bone passing through the first shoulder through the lungs and was lodged in the off shoulder ball socket." The tumble of a bullet in tissue is predicated on it encountering nothing but tissue -- once it hits bone, its trajectory will be deflected, and the ballistics of its motion become chaotic due to the vagaries of energy transfer to the bone. Additionally, bone fragments spalled by the collision function in a manner similar to bullet fragments, increasing the size of the permanent wound cavity even though the bullet may remain intact. The two bullets pictured and described as recovered from elephants provide no data, as no description of the bullet wounds is given.
Shots into the braincase of a target are a special case; only in a fully-enclosed volume like the braincase does the grossly overhyped 'hydrostatic shock' actually work the way that gun-lethality myths would have you believe. Additionally, since the bullet is penetrating the skull, the normal terminal ballistics of the projectile will not apply.
Now, I am not a vetrinary pathologist and don't necropsy everything I shoot, but I do investigate most wounds (I eat all my game) and I have seen several that were "through and throughs" and not being in a position to have seen the round exit, but seeing the angle of the hit and it's exit being linear, and the fact that I shot a mushromming round, I can only conclude that the round exited mushroom first, thus the greater diameter exit wound. In fact, it is difficult to see how recovered, "perfect" mushrooms could occur in a tumbling bullet? In fact, they could not, the mushroom would not remain intact.
Bullets that are designed to mushroom will dump energy faster than FMJ bullets. Because of this, by the time they reach penetration distances where the yaw angle has increased to the point at which a FMJ round would fragment, they have lost enough energy that the stress on the bullet is insufficient to cause fragmentation. Assuming that the bullet doesn't hit a bone solidly enough to deform the bullet further, it would not normally fragment further. Remember that the bullet tumble is around its own center of mass -- deviation from a straight line of travel typically only occurs after extended penetration -- beyond the point at which the round exits the body on a side-on shot, for example.
FMJ rounds have a higher maximum wounding potential; however, the actual amount of trauma inflicted can vary significantly from shot to shot unless the bullet is specifically designed to minimize distortion and fragmentation. JHP rounds designed to mushroom on impact cannot cause as much damage as a fragmenting JHP round, but they provide a much more consistent amount of trauma; this is a much more desirable characteristic in a hunting round than an indeterminate potential to do significantly more or less damage.
That is remarkble, every M16 bullet does this? I had no idea, no wonder they are so deadly. Does this still occur "at range"? Say 300-500 meters?
With decreasing bullet energy from increasing range, the bullet is less likely to fragment. The M193 round was particularly prone to fragmentation, and it was the appearance of a wound after the M193 round fragmented that supported the rumor that the M-16's bullet would tumble in flight (on top of any actual tumble from being fired through undergrowth).
Also, keyholing described by yourself is not "on impact", but rather is due to the amount of travel inside the cavity. Note also that what we arte discussing is not the tale of "tumbling bullets" that one hears at the range.
Bullets tumbling in flight on their own is something that is rarely seen, unless there is a big enough mismatch between the bullet, the barrel rifling, and the muzzle velocity -- as in the example I cited of firing the SS109 bullet through the older M16A1 barrels. The loss in accuracy from imparting insufficient spin to stabilize the bullet more than outweighs any additional lethality from having the bullet impact at an attitude to cause it to fragment immediately.
Many animals have been felled by partially deflected or deformed hunting rounds in brush. It is a poor practice that carries a high risk of lost--or worse, badly wounded and lost-game, called "brush busting" but some guys still play that game.
That type of injury is more commonly seen in gunshot wounds from combat, because a soldier often doesn't have the luxury of waiting to get the ideal shot against an enemy. Doing it while hunting shows that the hunter isn't lazy enough to do it right the first time -- if I shoot game, I want it to go down ASAP; I don't want to have to chase it across Hell's half acre to put it down.