/k/ - Weapons

In all honesty, you're probably gonna have a bitch of a time compiling enough reports to come up with a large enough sample size to achieve any real conclusions. I figure there's a bunch of legal roadblocks that'd make it difficult to even gather such data from bodies.

Watermelon and Spaghetti

>>612489

/thread

As mentioned by other posters, good luck trying to get actual case studies, people like me who are deep into the study of terminal ballistics try to get them but usually can't. Court cases are sealed, privacy laws are in place, studies of combat effectiveness are hard to interpret in some cases because there is no video and you have hazy eye witness testimony guiding you which is often incorrect.

Go ahead and read coroner reports on gunshot victims, they are often about worthless. Not all coroners are great at their jobs, as well as the information about the wounds not always being as accurate or in detail as you would wish. Some won't describe the wound channel or its affect almost at all, sometimes you read the whole thing to get "fucker died of gunshot wound lol" as the total value of the report.

Police reports might be the same summary, very little useful information on the subject, and they are more concerned about legal facts for the courts than terminal effectiveness for science. They aren't probing the body and taking careful notes of the damage, they are talking about actions of officers, civilians, perps, who did what when and how it went down. The military tends to bury dead soldiers, not cut them up like cadavers and take a looksie to see what happened. Battle reports might talk about hits that failed to stop, or hits that stopped, ect., but nothing about how each bullet performed on the body.

Perhaps the best sources in some cases are medical sources, doctors, surgeons, medics try to save victims and HAVE to know the wound extensively to treat it. Fackler wasn't just some guy digging in a few bodies, he was a surgeon who treated wounded. A medical worker who directly treats the wound will tell you what it did in detail more than anyone probing a corpse.

Those experts in the real field reference 10% ballistics gel tests because they are an observable medium and the results are often close to real life soft tissue damage. Hunters can tell you a lot, if you don't call them faggot Fudd's and chase them off. Take time to talk to some emergency room folks or doctors or medical forums. Otherwise, I would say that IWBA and its conclusions, the gel tests with understanding of them, is right and the closest you will get to the general grasp of the field.

>>612481

https://books.google.com/books/about/Gunshot_Wounds.html?id=VbrDbbHAflsC

This is what you're looking for.

The writer is Dr. Vincent Di Maio, a world renowned expert on gunshot wounds.

I agree with you that gel tests leave much to be desired, particularly how some /k/ommandos interpret them.

>>612495

This, hunters can give you a lot more honest and precise info on stuff than some tactical fags on forums. I've learned most stuff about ballistics from hunting guides, forums and such, especially about the choice and potential lethality of rounds.5.56 is not used on a deer, for example

>>612481

Fake a gay

>>612489

You forgot mayonnaise

>>612504

This paper seems to mostly be about identifying gunshot wounds with a small section about "stopping power" which the author says in the case of handgun rounds hollowpoints are not any more lethal then standard rounds. I might be stupid but that seems a bit off.

>>612503

>5.56 is not used on a deer, for example

Now you say that, but I've seen pictures of a deer's innards nearly liquefied by proper 5.56 to the heart. It was a sub-150 yard shot, sure, but a properly designed round with a 20" barrel does perform well.

>>613333

it's not about identifying gunshot wounds, although it could be used that way, it describes what characteristics of a wound are caused by what aka ballistic reports. with that in mind, when he says hollowpoint is not more lethal compared to roundnose, if you're purely looking at the wound profile they both leave similar paths and have similar characteristics, the considerations of being stopped in the target's body or crushing slightly more mass secondary.

Go fuck yourself for that image, I was having dinner.

Have some slav science anyway.

>>613342

>le crushing maymay

Bullets don't crush tissue you fucking retard, that isn't how gunshot wounding works. Stop repeating your headcanon in every thread.

>>613337

It can be done with such a setup but it's still not very recommended because of bigger reliance on shot placement. I read something about lighter bullets and lower sectional density and insufficient penetrating capability than amount recommended for such game.

>>613357

>bigger reliance on shot placement

In all seriousness, the difference in circumference is not that dramatic and shot placement is always king. As for velocity, .223(5.56) beats out .308 Winchester below 500 yards(~450 meters) where they become more or less equal, so penetration is not an issue.

Bullet weight is one thing, for certain, though expanding and otherwise properly deforming rounds make up for the lost mass with surface area.

>>613350

He's German not slav, JKGFJJHFJEnhjKLFEBHJKLHKNJLL yourself, faggot.

>>613351

is this bait?

>>613350

A leaf complaining about shit posting pic.

A leaf.

I swear I have lost so much respect for my northern neighbors because of 8chan.

>>613361

Penetration capability of a bullet is very dependent on its sectional density, not just the speed and shape.

https://www.chuckhawks.com/sd.htm

>>613376

While I respect the time and effort put into his studies, the difference between his theory and actual physical proof are night and day when he claims 5.56 and the like are ineffective against humans.

It's demonstrably false.

>>613369

I wish I could but a homosexual faggot keeps trying to call me out.

>>613381

>homosexual faggot

Here I was thinking the US education system was bad.

>keeps trying to call me out

In certain southern states in the US, dindus are called Canadians when relaying a story to prevent those overhearing from getting butthurt over racism.

I'm thinking it's appropriate.

>>613380

It is though, especially in current military configuration.

>>613386

So you're basing the performance of commercial ammunition on military FMJ that isn't made for the carbines it's being fired out of?

>>613388

I'm saying that military FMJ is the one most often used on humans and it's not that good for the job.

>>613386

The cartridge is not to be blamed for the inadequacies of the rifle firing it. 55gr M193 did very well on soft targets and armor, despite pacifist faggots complaining it was too brutal for war. It did very well out of a 20 inch barrel with it's twist rate of 1 twist per 12 inches, before the Army had to 'improve' it. In current configuration, the cartridge suffers from poor construction and implementation in 14.5 inch carbines meant for use beyond 300 meters. This is retarded to all by the kikes running logistics, who continue to make money off inefficiency. 5.56 has potential for effectiveness and balance, but neither of those qualities are good for business.

>>613388

Current issued 5.56 is best used in a 20-22" barrel where it gets about 95% powder burn.

The typical 14.5-16.5" doesn't get the velocities out of it that it should.

For the tiny 55gr bullet, the loss of velocity is a significant loss of power.

>>613391

Ok, fair enough. I guess it's my personal bias against long rifles used on ranges not much longer than PDW/SMG ones when one could get more than double the range in the same package.6mm intermediate cartridge when

>>613396

>That was my point

I linked the wrong post.

It was intended for the Slav.

>>613361

Whew, now that is some of the hardest 5.56 shilling I've ever heard. That's a doozy you got there, friend.

Energy is more important than velocity, and the whole "velocity is everything" only became fashionable when the military switched and had to defend the 5.56 and 9mm. It has some roots in the old 220 Swift and how it was marketed as a quick killer of even large game (but only with perfect shots at close range) and how high velocity small caliber guns cause varmits to explode (yet slower and more powerful bullets also do this) to eventually cause a myth to form. Please read "The Idolatry of Velocity, or Lies, Damn Lies, and Ballistics" and see how the cult that worships velocity is one of myth and legend, not fact.

The 308 Winchester will outdamage a 223 at every range, long and short, the extra velocity does not make it better at any range at all. At 500 yards the 308 has far more power and will do far more damage and is far more stable in flight. They are not "more or less equal" they are vastly different and 308 is even better at 500 yards than it is at point blank in performance. As stated by another poster, penetration of tissue has more to do with weight and sectional density, not velocity (although many hard barriers are very velocity affected, tissue is the opposite) and your edge in velocity will not cause it to have excellent penetration at that range in tissue.

The 308 and other high power rifles will do more damage because of superior hydrostatic shock/permanent stretch damage, and therefore the statement that you have more room for error in shot placement is true, you can miss the vitals with the POI a little bit more with the more damaging round and still damage/crush/tear it effectively for an efficient and ethical kill. Most of all, .223/5.56 for hunting deer is a bad idea because the bullets used are so small that they tend to fragment on bone and will fail to penetrate into the animal to the organs and kill the animal at all. Sure, with the right shot you can kill a deer, but with the real life impacts hunters make under imperfect conditions and mistakes and pulled shots, its not an ethical choice because it can fail in those scenarios where a truly ethical caliber choice would not have failed. 243,270,30-30,308 ect. will punch through a big buck's shoulder and kill it, while a .224 caliber bullet may shatter and fail to reach the vitals, that bone being in the way of the perfect angle kill shot and in the area of the vital organs.

By the way, its also not a "small difference" in caliber holes. An 8mm Mauser has TWICE the frontal surface area of bullet than a .224 anything. 45-70 Gumit has been used for effective hunting with low velocity, low energy, barely expanding lead bullets because its a large bullet. Its not just a "few thousands of an inch lol" that became popular after 45 ACP hollow points began to out expand 9mm Luger (considering he fuss 9mm fanbois made about it when they were outexpanding with early ammunition or against 45 ball) the .458 caliber is over 4 times as large, meaning it can crush 4 times the tissue with the same depth of penetration, as well as superior resistance and tearing of tissue.

So, no, I would argue the bans on 223 for hunting deer are ethical, sane, and should be upheld. There are better choices for consideration and no real excuse to use an inferior one.

>>613412

holy hell your post is hard to read

It's a bunch of assumptions and hearsay supplemented with "muh stoppin' powah" and a clear lack of actual wound observation regarding actual hunting ammunition.

>There are better choices

Well no shit, but all of the photographic evidence shows it's not because it underperforms but because match ammunition destroys too much meat and lighter grain breaks bone.

Theory is all well and good, but if it's based upon outdated information then it's not worth a second glance.

>>613412

>308 is even better at 500 yards than it is at point blank in performance

How so?

>>613417

You're replying to a guy who believes that bullets wound by "crushing". You know, because the stretchy elastic materials known as flesh, muscle, and organs are so easily damaged by crushing them, and punching a fucking hole in them or tearing them with the dispersion of impact energy and transfer of momentum doesn't hurt at all? You know how those high-end hollow points do a good job of crushing things when they deform and fragment? There's your answer. He's a retard with zero real shooting experience.

>>613416

Theory? I am a hunter and I know what bullets do. Your pictures are typical, nothing special, and do nothing to change what has been presented. 223 is not a super meat destroyer, match bullets are built for accuracy not damage, and I'm starting to get the feeling you've never hunted anything before. Never did I mention stopping power, I explained various aspects of bullets and their performance. I think you are a typical internet poster whose just shitposting, or autistic like our old friend. >>613418, who also knows nothing about terminal ballistics and follows certain myths of his own.

>>613417

Sorry, what I should have said was that the 308's superiority in performance over the 223 is far greater when both rounds are considered at 500 yards than if both rounds were compared at point blank performance. I stated that poorly before, you are correct. The further the distance we compare both rounds at, the 308's advantage over the 223 at the same distance grows. Or better stated, the 223 is more competitive at closer ranges to the 308 when we compare them at the same range, and that disadvantage the 223 suffers only gets worse as that range comparison increases in distance.

>>613418

You are that retard who is probably on disability because of untreatable autism who keeps screetching ignorantly in all of these threads. Not worth the time to discuss anything with you any longer.

>>613418

Well didn't you know? Ballistics study hasn't advanced past the days of the trebuchet, bullets crush like a mallet.

Hydrostatic shock is definitely a real and legitimate thing because a smart guy said so once, and the displacement of water after just one round of .45 ACP turns your insides into jelly!

Nevermind that people who have actually been shot don't actually notice anything about being shot past the stinging heat, they're just dumbasses who have never fired a gun a day in their lives.

And don't even mention the corpses that don't really show anything past the body's desperate struggle to stay alive after being magdumped, truly the trauma of that first or eighth round into non-vital areas was what knocked him on his feet. Not shock setting in or the eventual bloodloss. I bet if the United States Military used .45-70 leverguns they wouldn't even have to hit the enemy to pop their heads open!

You see, instead of looking at actual gunshot wounds for study, we look at those gigantic temporary wound cavities in blocks of gelatin, because while they aren't representative of the human body whatsoever and are actually intended as a consistent testbed for comparison and basic projectile function, they definitely show what a round actually does when faced with organs and tissue and generally the proposed target's state of mind.

>>613368

>protohohols shilling made it to 8chan

>>613430

I'm going to (You) you just to draw attention to the fact that you're throwing a tantrum because you got called out. You aren't within your rights to call anyone a 'kid', you projecting attention whore loser. Blogpost somewhere else.

>>613434

I carry .50 A&E and use .50 BMG for durr hunting. But I heard 20mm might be better, not sure I have enough sectional density.

>>613424

Funny, I do study this field. I know what real gunshots look like, apparently you don't. I don't repeat urban myths but instead observations and work of people in the field, including what I've seen. Everything you've attributed to me is strawmen, did I say anything of what you are implying I said? No. You are a failure and are just attacking me because you have nothing useful to rebut or say.

If you think long, well written posts that are actually useful and informative are "blogposts" and are bad, well, I guess I'm a bad poster for being informative and well read, and you must be a good poster because you are an ignorant shitposter, which makes sense considering where we are.

Look, you've already stopped making valid arguments and are jumping straight to name calling and strawmen. You really are a complete and total fraud aren't you? Where did you steal the picture of the deer kill?

>>613463

You Jewish, by the way? Walking into a place as an uninvited guest and then seeking ways to attack the culture of the place you invaded sounds pretty heeby to me, my dude. If you want people to think you're smart, then stop typing page-long dissertations of nothing and back up your central points with objectivity, instead of this pansy 'it's true because I said it and if you criticise me you're the idiot' malarkey. Or if you want them to think you look like a douche, keep talking like one. I gotta say it's not attractive, though.

>>613480

>having reading comprehension this poor

>uhhhhh well jimbo i thinks we done blewed a hole in this here deer, less have a looksie

>well hootin' cookin' when that there remin'ton sawfpoint hit 'um it mushroomed and stretched 'um out real good

>looky there, ya can see all li'l bits of the meat all tored up and dangly

>here's where it struck a bone and broke it and then skewed off more lefty

>i tell yew what jimbo i think it done got stretched to capaci-tea and ripped to shreds

>lookit how clean the entrancey hole is though, almost like it hit so hard an' fast it cut its way through the skin like a pencil through paper

<i guess it got crushed

you have the anatomical understanding of a blackfoot who literally believes the organs hold spirits

>>613451

How effective would a vehicle-mounted MK 103 loaded with 30x184B HEF/M be at Landwhale hunting?

>>613521

>he unironically, actually thinks that bullets cut through flesh like "scissors through paper"

I don't even know what to say. Commit suicide you literal 0 IQ flesh lump.

>>618165

>making a strawman this hard

>while being retarded enough to think puncturing and crushing are the same thing

Why don't you come to my house and I'll crush your belly with my Bowie knife, you subhuman nogunz?

>>613361

>>613412

>5.56 vs .308

6.5 Grendel beats them both.

>>613412

> that became popular after 45 ACP hollow points began to out expand 9mm Luger (considering he fuss 9mm fanbois made about it when they were outexpanding with early ammunition or against 45 ball

9mm hollow point is the end all be all of pistol ammunition, anything that is better than it in any single regard is worse than it in three other areas.

>>613474

Wow, I wasn't aware that you had to be invited onto an imageboard, or that retarded autists who spend their entire lives posting on a board every single day of their lives owned them! I guess actual knowledge of the facts is trumped by the fact you are a worthless, but veteran, shitposter on this board. I guess your seniority here makes all of your arguments automatically correct, I am sorry.

>>618210

Nobody has gone anywhere, dude. The simple fact is you don't know how bullets work and you have to double down and use hyperbole to pretend you have any idea what you're talking about. Your posting style would be more welcome on Facebook politics threads.

>implying IQ does real

Ashkenazilet spotted.

>>613358

That's a good video. Has a neat late 80's early 90's instructional video vibe. Tell me of this Paul Harrell.

>>618291

Would a 5" barrel take advantage of greater case capacity whilst keeping pressure low enough for an acceptable service life with affordable alloys and metallurgical processing?