Full Metal Jacket Ammo For Fox

[Hydropotesinermis 724]

Here is an expanding bullet that don't expand. What it says on the tin don't happen!

Fmj.

 

U

f***ing love that rifle

[Alsone 789]

The biggest military criticism of any round is its lethality! Time and again studies and reports speak very clearly on the desire to improve a cartridges lethality!

 

Designed to wound is bullshit!

 

Lethality, really?

 

I'm accused of spouting bullshit but Frank Barnes one of the most famous World Wide experts on cartridges and reloading (remember the Barnes grenade), specifically states that military FMJ is unsuitable for hunting and is designed to wound. It's also been a military tactic for well over 100 years to wound instead of kill irrespective of whether that comes from the Geneva convention restrictions on design or deliberate bullet design in itself, because of it's ability to take forces out of the theatre of operation in caring for injured colleagues. Many munitions are designed to injure rather than kill.

 

But as you still don't believe that FMJ is not a good round for killing power, and insist it has superb lethality, here's an article from a Gulf war medic who was combat advisor to the US Armed Forces for 2 tours of Afghanistan and now deals with urban shootings as a paramedic:

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/10/daniel-zimmerman/medics-advice-shoot-heaviest-rifle-round-shoot-can-hit-shoot/

 

 

I was an EMT and a trauma tech working on a truck and in a trauma room for about 10 years and I was an army combat medic for eight years. Also — and this is important — when deployed I was almost always part of an “advisor” force. I was technically a “combat advisor” for two tours in Afghanistan, embedded with the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police force. I’ve done the same thing with host nation National Guard troops in Central America.

....I kept mission logs and patient logs. Looking through all my logs, both CONUS and OCONUS, I have recorded 371 gun shot wounds and significant blast injuries.

 

.... for the 5.56 NATO round. I have yet to witness a single shot quick kill with this round. I even recorded a patient shot from less than three feet away, square in the back of the head, who lived.

 

The round did not exit his body. Yes, he was immediately rendered unconscious and required (might I say exceptional) medical treatment. He was comatose for at least six months after that, but he lived.

But more importantly, in every experience, at ranges from zero (negligent discharges) to 35 yards (my closest, and worst-placed, shot on a person) to 400 yards (our average initial engagement distance in Afghanistan) individuals shot with a single 5.56 NATO round had time to fire, maneuver, or both. Did I see single shots that killed eventually? Yes. Does that matter in combat? Not one damn bit if you are the one they are still shooting at.

 

In my experience, the standard NATO combat round pokes 5.56mm holes in both bones and flesh, shattering nothing. It creates minimal bleeding. I know people say it tumbles and yaws, but that isn’t my experience at all. I saw it poke tiny holes in humans and rarely induced hemorrhaging sufficient to cause unconsciousness or uncompensated shock, which is the only result that matters.

 

I have included a photo of a patient shot at close range with the 5.56NATO round (below). The photo is of the patient’s calf, and is as I received the patient, within minutes after the shooting. Minimal care was necessary, with the primary concern being infection and tendon damage, not blood loss or bone damage. This is typical of the damage I have seen by this round.

 

As an aside, Chris Kyle (FWFS, brother) was a friend of mine, and while not so patiently listening to one of my Crown-induced rants on the 5.56 NATO, he suggested that it was not caliber I hated, but the bullet. He told me to load up the case as fast as I could, push a 64 grain or heavier soft point round and see what happens. So I had Underground Tactical built me an AR in 5.56 which I swore I would never own, and built rounds ranging from 64 to 75 grains with it. I’ve taken 11 deer with them, and the wound tracks are nothing like I saw with the NATO round. I’ve never had to look for an animal, and a little Underground 5.5lb AR in 5.56 is my go-to hill country deer gun now, which is just crazy.

 

 

 

The photo mentioned above showing a 5.56mm FMJ to the thigh with neat entry and exit wound and minimal damage (combat shooting):

 

 

 

.223 (5.56mm) Expanding Ammunition to the thigh (civilian shooting)

 

WARNING - Linked only as very graphic, you look only at your own volition:

 

http://www.gunslot.com/files/gunslot/imagecache/page/images/75687.jpg

 

Now yes, we are very much off topic with military wounds. However, it shows very graphically the difference in effect between FMJ and Expanding Ammunition from the same calibre.

 

I would repeat again what I said above, yes FMJ will kill fox. However there's a big difference between something that will kill and something that will kill cleanly and repeatedly sufficiently enough to be humane and suitable in the context of a round for general use.

 

Shoot enough animals with FMJ and proportionately you will wound, and you will wound more than with expanding ammunition.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Alsone

[Underdog 2,337]

That's a funny looking fox.

[Born Hunter 17,628]

I don't care what frank Barnes says. There has been absolutely no evidence presented that supports the statement that the 556 was designed to wound! It was not, it was designed to improve the firepower of an infantry unit in modern warfare.

 

It was the Hague convention that forced the use of non expanding ammo and therefore reduced lethality and militaries are constantly working to improve the lethality of ammo within this law! You can keep pushing the wound myth but without backing it up its just hearsay.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Born Hunter

[Deker 3,453]

And I can show you any number of Expanding that have gone clean through and left a neater hole, also a .204 V-Max that simply surface cratered a fox.

 

I had a Muntjac some years back with a .223 expanding and couldn't find entry or exit until I skinned it, neat as they come.

 

Shropshire dan has found his 22-250 FMJ accurate in his rifle, he has also stopped fox with it, so it works, and if it didn't then I'm sure he would cease using the ammo.

 

That's the difference between real life and books!

[Graham M 36]

When the 5.56 Nato was first designed it used a 62grn bullet and a 1-14 twist, which made it very unstable. The wounds that this caused were horrendous as the bullet could enter in the chest and exit out the lower back or shoulder. This made it almost too inhumane for battlefield use and the twist was increased to 1-12 and eventually down to 1-7 in order to really stabilise the bullet and to make it more accurate. The horrific wounding was reduced but the round was still effective when the target was hit cleanly.

The primary factor in using 5.56 against 7.62 was that the soldier could carry twice as much ammo.

 

However when you see that the "bullet to kill ratio" in Iraq and Afghanistan was estimated to be 250,000 bullets to every insurgent killed........

[Deker 3,453]

When the 5.56 Nato was first designed it used a 62grn bullet and a 1-14 twist, which made it very unstable. The wounds that this caused were horrendous as the bullet could enter in the chest and exit out the lower back or shoulder. This made it almost too inhumane for battlefield use and the twist was increased to 1-12 and eventually down to 1-7 in order to really stabilise the bullet and to make it more accurate. The horrific wounding was reduced but the round was still effective when the target was hit cleanly.

The primary factor in using 5.56 against 7.62 was that the soldier could carry twice as much ammo.

 

However when you see that the "bullet to kill ratio" in Iraq and Afghanistan was estimated to be 250,000 bullets to every insurgent killed........

 

 

Now, I know exactly what you mean, but someone may well suggest that proves the fact the 5.56 was designed to wound, 250,000 shots and only one dead!

 

So this thread could still go on a long while yet!

 

[Born Hunter 17,628]

That's a reflection of modern warfare where engagements typically use infantry to suppress the enemy for artillery or air power to finish. The statistic is similar for Vietnam which is when the 556 and M16 was rolled out.

 

We can look at anecdotes all day;

 

How truly deadly is the 5.56? Well, this past April when I was going through Combat Skills Training at Ft. McCoy, Wisconsin, one week was spent in Combat Life-Saving class (CLS). The medics who instructed us had slide show after slide show of combat injuries they have treated over their last three deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. And let me tell you, these were not for the weak stomachs among us. If you are reading this article, I bet you are the same type of person as I to ask, “What calibers caused those wounds?” These men and women have seen the worst injuries of coalition forces and enemy combatants alike. The Geneva Conventions state that medics must provide medical care to all captured enemy personnel when able. Therefore, many Taliban and Jihadist fighters came across their operating rooms. After class one day I asked all of them, “Do any of you doubt the killing power of the 5.56 round?” They all answered with a resounding, “NO.” http://www.futurefirepower.com/myths-about-the-nato-556-cartridge

 

556 FMj as a hunting round:

http://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/.223+Remington.html

 

 

But the reality remains, there's nothing to suggest that the 556 was designed to wound. Other than this belief that wounded men are better than dead men all the evidence and reports suggest that is bollocks and lethality is a critical requirement in combat.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Born Hunter

[walshie 2,804]

Just be on the safe side and use these. If you ever find the right quarry of course.

 

[Underdog 2,337]

The twist was increased to aid long range accuracy.

A requirement to penetrate light armour to iirc 600yds was placed on the who ever.

The original bullet was 55grn. Then 63 and then 69. If I remember correctly!

 

The m16 was never rolled out of service during Vietnam.

 

U.

[Born Hunter 17,628]

The twist was increased to aid long range accuracy.

A requirement to penetrate light armour to iirc 600yds was placed on the who ever.

The original bullet was 55grn. Then 63 and then 69. If I remember correctly!

 

The m16 was never rolled out of service during Vietnam.

 

U.

 

The US Army took their first order of the M16 durring the early stages of their involvement in Vietnam. To replace the M14. They were obviously playing with it prior to that. I'm really not interested in another history lesson argument, lol.

[Underdog 2,337]

Found these two as well.

Fmj bullets.

 

 

U.

[Graham M 36]

In fairness I have also heard that the idea was to wound rather than kill as this took up valuable resources and men.

 

But I do not have access to the secret military thinking behind this, so I'll leave others to theorise.

 

My grandkids are convinced that the illuminate rule the world and that governments do as they are told ..............go figure.

 

 

 

 

G

[Alsone 789]

Just be on the safe side and use these. If you ever find the right quarry of course.

 

 

I'm still with Walshie.