Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
NFA & Class III Discussion
10.5” 5.56 SBR Ammo Recommendations
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Norman" data-source="post: 3684746" data-attributes="member: 4232"><p>I said a few times that tissue disruption, penetration and kinetic energy kill. The velocity you lose between your chosen rounds and MK262 is around 150fps. In the grand scheme of things, that’s pretty much moot.</p><p>This is from the source material of the first link you posted:</p><p></p><p></p><h3>MAJOR MISCONCEPTIONS</h3><h4>1. Idolatry of Velocity:</h4><p>A widespread dogma claims that wounds caused by "high-velocity" projectiles must be treated by extensive excision of tissue around the missile path (34-40), whereas those caused by "low-velocity" missiles need little or no treatment (41, 42). Two half-truths nurture this error. The first of these, "Cavitation is a ballistic phenomenon associated with very high velocity missiles" (7), is easily disproved. The wound profile in <a href="http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/figure1.gif" target="_blank">Fig 1</a> shows a very substantial temporary cavity produced by a low-velocity" bullet. This bullet, fired from the Vetterli rifle at 1357 ft/s (414 m/s), has ballistic characeristics typical of those used by military forces in the latter half of the nineteenth century. It is the same bullet used by Theodor Kocher for most of his wound ballistics studies (23-27). It is obvious from this wound profile that temporary cavitation is not, as popularly believed, a modern phenomenon associated exclusively with projectiles of "high velocity."”</p><p></p><p>In the end it’s like I said, you do you. I would highly recommend you look into the work of Dr Gary K. Roberts though. </p><p></p><p>Also this matters a lot less with the use of proper TTP’s and accurate rounds, but this is an ammo recommendation thread.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Norman, post: 3684746, member: 4232"] I said a few times that tissue disruption, penetration and kinetic energy kill. The velocity you lose between your chosen rounds and MK262 is around 150fps. In the grand scheme of things, that’s pretty much moot. This is from the source material of the first link you posted: [HEADING=2]MAJOR MISCONCEPTIONS[/HEADING] [HEADING=3]1. Idolatry of Velocity:[/HEADING] A widespread dogma claims that wounds caused by "high-velocity" projectiles must be treated by extensive excision of tissue around the missile path (34-40), whereas those caused by "low-velocity" missiles need little or no treatment (41, 42). Two half-truths nurture this error. The first of these, "Cavitation is a ballistic phenomenon associated with very high velocity missiles" (7), is easily disproved. The wound profile in [URL='http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/figure1.gif']Fig 1[/URL] shows a very substantial temporary cavity produced by a low-velocity" bullet. This bullet, fired from the Vetterli rifle at 1357 ft/s (414 m/s), has ballistic characeristics typical of those used by military forces in the latter half of the nineteenth century. It is the same bullet used by Theodor Kocher for most of his wound ballistics studies (23-27). It is obvious from this wound profile that temporary cavitation is not, as popularly believed, a modern phenomenon associated exclusively with projectiles of "high velocity."” In the end it’s like I said, you do you. I would highly recommend you look into the work of Dr Gary K. Roberts though. Also this matters a lot less with the use of proper TTP’s and accurate rounds, but this is an ammo recommendation thread. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
NFA & Class III Discussion
10.5” 5.56 SBR Ammo Recommendations
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom