# HK XM-8 - Interesting weapon



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 14, 2004)

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Gear_051104_XM8,00.htmlAnyone know more about this?  Looks like something outta Star Trek.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 14, 2004)

That is, I believe, the weapon they demonstrated on one of the "sicence" channels... History, Discovery... etc...

Phenominaly cool weapon if it is the same one...


----------



## Baytor (Sep 14, 2004)

I read about it in popular mechanics.  Should be a good change for the military.  Being able to customize depending on the mission is a good thing I think.


----------



## kelly keltner (Sep 14, 2004)

I saw something simalar a few months back on a discovery or history chanel I don't remember which. I believe it was called the XM29 it had 20mm programable air burst ammo coupled with the .223 and maybe a shotgun. It had some ungodly weight problems and the manufacterer was looking for a way to make it lighter.  This rifle looks like it may be a variant of that one.


kelly


----------



## Seig (Sep 14, 2004)

I want one.


----------



## bignick (Sep 15, 2004)

coming to a flea market near you...


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 15, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> coming to a flea market near you...


I wish...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 15, 2004)

Heres an official photo.


I want 1 too.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 15, 2004)

kelly keltner said:
			
		

> I saw something simalar a few months back on a discovery or history chanel I don't remember which. I believe it was called the XM29 it had 20mm programable air burst ammo coupled with the .223 and maybe a shotgun. It had some ungodly weight problems and the manufacterer was looking for a way to make it lighter.  This rifle looks like it may be a variant of that one.
> 
> 
> kelly



Yeah... thats the one I was thinking of.


----------



## AnimEdge (Sep 15, 2004)

All we have to do is wait on the machine gun ban to go away then we can 
I want one too


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 15, 2004)

Combine this weapon with the new battle field suits/armour coming out and I will bet any amount of funds that the US SOLIDER will be able to walk into any battlefield and walk away the winner. Along with new bio technologies and GPS guideance systems for the small unit member. We may have to look for new opponents.

Starts looking at the sky


----------



## Baytor (Sep 15, 2004)

The planet Mars is harboring intergalactic terrorists.  And yellow cake.  Except it's Red...becuse it's on Mars.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 15, 2004)

IamBaytor said:
			
		

> The planet Mars is harboring intergalactic terrorists.  And yellow cake.  Except it's Red...becuse it's on Mars.



Mmm. Cake.


----------



## kelly keltner (Sep 15, 2004)

AnimEdge said:
			
		

> All we have to do is wait on the machine gun ban to go away then we can
> I want one too


 Yeah you will be able to get one in every state except California(where I live) because they are banned here by state law.

kelly


----------



## Tgace (Sep 15, 2004)

I would do away with the carry handle and get the optics a little closer to the bore line. I could never figure that out with the M-16 either (before the development of the removable handle). I was trained to never carry a weapon by the carry handle anyway.

Interesting "Land Warrior" site..
http://www.usma.edu/publicaffairs/PV/020719/Warrior2.htm


----------



## Tgace (Sep 16, 2004)

Good Old H&K. Take a look at the G36C assault carbine. Its basically the same design except for the "Star Wars" chassis. Personally I like the design of this one better.

http://www.floridaairsoft.com/reviews/g36c/g36cleftgrip.jpg


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 27, 2004)

Yeah, I was following the prototype but not looked in on it for a while...

This is pretty much the ultimate Assault Rifle as far as I am concerned... I mean it does everything:

<rave>

Squad level support fire?  20" barrel & bipod, drum magazine.

'Tactical' fire support (sniper)? 20" sharpshooter barrel, possibly a smaller magazine?

Standard Infantry role?  12.5" barrel, M16 style magazines (must be loads of them so they'll want to keep using them for a while...)

Tank crew PD?  9" barrel, no optics, small magazine.

</rave>

US Army would be idiots not to adopt it, frankly.  As would any other army... sadly British Army persists with the ill-fated SA-80 POS.

John


----------



## TonyM. (Sep 28, 2004)

Bore line at too much angle, 5.56mm ineffective round, 20mm is almost uncommentable as the 40mm is a terribly weak grenade. Anouther scientific breakthrough ala Stoner to insure our boys look good on the field as they die.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 28, 2004)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> Bore line at too much angle, 5.56mm ineffective round, 20mm is almost uncommentable as the 40mm is a terribly weak grenade. Anouther scientific breakthrough ala Stoner to insure our boys look good on the field as they die.


Ahhh..the old 5.56 arguement . Ive seen some video/studies of police shootings with 5.56. Let me tell ya, when loaded with hollow point rounds, the 5.56 drops people like sacks of $%&!. Its the bizzare use of hardball by the military (can bomb, torch, run over with tanks, etc. but hollow points are inhumane??) that is the root of all the inadequate stop stories. 

One thing I do wonder about the use of 5.56mm....6.8 Remington looks berthed to launch as the new round of choice for the AR platform, why design a whole new weapon on 5.56?

As for 40mm being weak. I was actually impressed with how big a bang they made for the size. I recall engaging targets at 800+ meters with HE and having my chest rattle....


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 28, 2004)

5.56mm is not ineffective at all.  Use of hardpoint is for penetration - most military targets (legitimate ones, anyway) are wearing body armour.  Of course given recent US military history, they probably do need to start using hollowpoint.. civilians are usually not armoured.  There is an interesting pistol (the Five-Seven) which uses a similar calibre and is designed specifically for military use - same company that gave us the P-90 smg.

John


----------



## Tgace (Sep 28, 2004)

Maybe some of the more wealthier nations can afford to armor their troops with level III or IV armor, but thats not the reason we use hardball. Goes way back to Hague Convention rules against hollow points, and various other rules to make killing more "civilized". 



> The Hague Convention of 1899 consist of four main sections and three additional declarations (the final main section is for some reason identical to the first additional declaration):
> I - Pacific Settlement of International Disputes
> II - Laws and Customs of War on Land
> III - Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of Principles of Geneva Convention of 1864
> ...


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 28, 2004)

True enough... but my point is valid, all the same.  Most nations can armour troops to levels I & II (are these terms commonly understood around here then?) at least.  As you say, many nations could field up to levels III and IV for battlefield troops if they wished.  Bear in mind that when fighting a war, infantry aim is not so much to kill (and there is interesting info on how few soldiers even fire, much less shoot to kill) as wound and intimidate to the point where the conflict ends in your favour, leaving you in control of the ground.

John


----------



## Tgace (Sep 28, 2004)

Agreed...All the same, Im certain that a soldier with an enemy rushing his position wants to Kill the guy as fast as he can and could care less about how wounding him will occupy 2-3 of his comrades.  Our little US tour through Somalia stirred up a lot of complaints amongst the troops about the 5.56 (many the "black tip" steel penetrator rounds) not stopping the BG's.

Im more interested in the 6.8 Remington round. Better terminal ballistics than 7.62, smaller than 7.62. More range and punch than 5.56 and only requires a new upper receiver on the M4/M16/AR and a small magizine adaptation.


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 28, 2004)

Actually... the stats say that most soldiers don't want to kill him at all... but that is a topic for an entirely different thread, I think.  Especially as a lot of people won't / won' want to believe it.

As for the new round... I agree, as it happens.  I'd rather have the new Remington round as I always felt that 5.56mm was just a little too small, even allowing for the fact it was deliberately lighter and smaller than older calibres.  In the UK the old SLR is still thought of fondly and not entirely for the fact that it looks a lot better and 'feels like a real rifle'.  The round it fired (I cannot remember precisely the designation so I shall admit it rather than make it up!) was about the same as the Russian 7.62 - a significantly heavier round with all the accompanying ballistic performance differences.  Soldiers were not at all keen on the switch to 5.56 even though it IS more accurate as fired from the SA-80.  After all, they argued, they were not having that much difficulty hitting their targets, they just wanted to be sure they could hit them at range and that the target was not going to be in a hurry get up and take another.  Nevertheless, the 5.56mm calibre has proved a success and is certainly not 'ineffective'.  I see the similar wishful thinking / bias in the 9mm vs 'insert favourite, usually .45 here' arguments that rage in pistol threads.  9mm is a good choice of round in some circumstances.  In LEO work it is actually not bad at all, depending on how said LEOs are trained to shoot.  If they want 'one shot anywhere and he is lucky to live' type rounds, the 9mm is not it.  However, that seems a long way from "Protect (even from their own stupidity) and Serve" to me...

Bit of a ramble, I know... hit me back ;¬)

John


----------



## Tgace (Sep 28, 2004)

I believe you are referring to Grossmans work (On Killing). Interesting and has many good points, but has some holes too. Even so, his book ends by saying that through desensitization and modern training methods, most (modern trained) soldiers do indeed engage "targets". At work I just saw some videos he has produced in regards to "Active Shooter" response by LE. I think the issue is as much (or at least significantly) about training as it is about any "natural inhibition" against killing.


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 28, 2004)

No, not that at all.  Although that is an interesting piece of work... let me see if I can dig up something solid for you over the next couple of days.  But in short... a very small number of people will actually shoot to kill and training makes no difference to it - it's psychological in nature and rooted in self-identity, training doesn't alter this even though military does alter psychological make up in some ways.

Cutting to the bottom line, it turns out that only two types of people actually set out to kill in a battlefield scenario - psychopaths and 'guardians' (several terms are in use for this, but I'll explain anyway).  Psychopaths is self explanatory, I hope.  'Guardians' are people who are perfectly normal until they are put into a situation where they decide that others must die in order to protect the lives of friends, family, country, etc.  At which point they kill without hesitation or remorse, very efficiently and often are applauded as "very brave".  It's a sort 'mode switch' and only some people can and will make it as it is 'hard-wired' in the brain/mind somehow.  They, with the psychopaths, account for almost all the direct-fire / hand-to-hand battlefield kills as well as (unsurprisingly) tending to be the people who die or get medals.

Interesting, no?

John


----------



## Tgace (Sep 28, 2004)

Yeah, thats Grossman...
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/grossm1.htm


> Grossman explores the reasons for the soldier's reluctance at shooting the enemy, which has led to the change in his training. Exploring the history of combat, examining hundreds of individual case studies, he shows that fear of death or harm to oneself is not a primary factor; a soldier will often even put himself in mortal danger to avoid having to kill another. And almost all soldiers will crack psychologically if held in constant combat for an extraordinary length of time. Yet, a tiny minority of troops seem predisposed to suffer no such harm, and actually to thrive on killing others. *These are described as psychopathic personalities or, as Grossman puts it, alternatively, sheepdog-guardians for their fellow troops.*



Like I said, the guy does have some good points, but the history of human slaughter kinda shows that we dont have too much trouble doing the deed....


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 28, 2004)

He uses a similar term, but that is not the work I was referring to, I am sure of it. I'll re-read him to make sure I am not confusing myself about who said what, where, but I am pretty sure.

As for slaughter... most of it is done by or under supervision of people are sociopaths / psychopaths. E.g. many SS were not [the above] and did not in fact engage in murder of civilians, etc. Those units that did were made up of a really unpleasant bunch of mentally and socially unblanced misfits. Just the kind of people for remorseless killing of.. well... anybody, but preferrably the unarmed - don't want to risk being hurt yourself, after all..

OK, Marshall is one of the sources he [Grossman] references, which is also referenced by the work I am actually referring to.  I really will look and try to find something solid to post / link here.  Grossman I've read but it is not what I was actually referring to.  Although it bears re-examination if I am going to dredge this one..

John

[edit] added paragraph on Marshall, Grossman, etc.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 28, 2004)

Just to clarify, by slaughter I was implying the long history of humans killing each other, not specific incidents of "slaughter". The "Art" of military leadership has always been basically about gathering people and equipment and putting them in situations where they have to fight. To really butcher Sun Zu... "one who utilizes force employs his men as if rolling logs or stones down a hill. It is the nature of logs and stones that on level ground they remain still, and on a slope they move. So the force a commander creates is like a log or rock plunging downward from a thousand feet up." Its also the reason most (US) military leadership is on the "follow me!" concept. People will follow and fight for leaders when they apply certain principles and training methods.

SLA Marshalls "Men Against Fire" is another "Grossmanlike" book ( actually Grossman is probably more "Marshall-like" if you get my drift  ). Again, good book , good points, but IMO too simplistic and all based on premises that seem more opinion than "fact" to me. Marshall's been hacked on his sources and method of data collection, however that dosent mean that what they say has no merit or isnt of value in the field of military/martial science...not by a long shot.


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 28, 2004)

Well, the reality of historical conflict is that very often there was a lot less killing than people think. Breaking the will to fight is a) easier b) more effective than trying to kill a lot of people, per se. That aside...

I remember the Grossman crap now.. it's a favourite with dickheads who try to argue that 'violent videogames / films' turn people into killers. This has been repeatedly falsified so I shan't go over it again. However, he referenced a lot of material that is relevant, such as the figures for the number of combat troops who fire their weapons. More recent research has shown that even when the weapons are fired it is often not at a target but rather 'in a general direction to show willing' and that even when pressed into firing at an actual opponent people try and shoot either 'near enough to force him to back off / back up' or 'at a location that won't kill him, necessarily.. just put him out the fight and stop him shooting at me / rushing me'. Very few soldiers, the same proportion, it seems, shoot to kill even now. Those that do appear to fit the two categories I outlined above - they are either psychopaths (sometimes sociopaths) or they are 'guardians' who in any situation other than a "this is a real me/my friends/my family/my country or them scenario" will be just as unwilling to kill and seriously injure as the majority of the rest of humanity. I just wish I could find the paper detailing all the above stuff which is not found in Grossman, Marshall, etc.

John

P.S. Humans are the only species which regularly deliberately kills members of its own species on any appreciable scale. Our history does reflect that, as you alluded, but in general 'at war' we killed each other a lot less than the cinema might suggest. E.g. Gladiatorial combat was often not to the death and was still, it seems, far more violent and bloody than actually serving in a foreign campaign with the (Roman) legions.

[edit] corrected minor spelling/typingerror which confused the sense


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 28, 2004)

Further to the above.. it has been theorized that the reason soldiers act this is that when we have adrenaline flowing our higher functions shut down (undisputed) and that this leads to us reverting to more primitive 'primate' reactions - we go for posturing and violent 'antler locking' type responses designed to intimidate and injure but not outright kill.  After all, we want our species to succeed and that means we want as many individuals alive as possible... we just want to be on the top of that pack of individuals not the bottom.  This last stuff is theory, for the most part and is a lot of what I want to find the source for *sigh*

John


----------



## Tgace (Sep 28, 2004)

The thing is (again strictly IMHO), poor training and leadership could be argued to be the cause for those mentioned phenomena as well as "human nature". And units with more and better training do consistently show better performance. I think its a blend of many issues in the end. Nothing is strictly a "one cause" answer. 

Nice discussion here though.


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 28, 2004)

Well... the interesting thought that occurs to me is.. are the 'guardian' types people who have learnt to deal with adrenaline better, so lose less cognitive ability and so make a rational choice to kill not posture?  I suspect that trained Martial Artists who are serious about 'realistic' self-defence and so on would turn out to be MUCH more likely to show up as a 'guardian' than a control sample of non-martial artists. 
If anybody wants to fund my research in this field..... <weg>

I personally do believe the stuff about the 'hard-wired for posturing' though.  Look at a typical "Saturday-Night-Fight" in a pub/bar/club.  It's all about exactly that and although sometimes the line is crossed, often it is crossed by people who we would class as psychopathic in the real clinical sense.  Seems to back it up, no?  But hardly valid empirical evidence, I admit.

As for my introspection.. I should point out that I very nearly became an officer in the British Army recently.  I actually withdrew from the entire thing because of the politics of a recent 'conflict' and my own views being incompatible with my government's position.  In good conscience I could not continue.. but back to the point.. I tested, years ago before some serious counselling, as 'borderline psychopath'.  Now, this one is contentious because if you test anyone in the way these tests are typically done they have a much higher likelihood of showing up as just that (this is a whole other topic fit for a psych forum not here so I shall leave it there) but it's certainly true that even non-academics referred to me as 'a bit pyscho' at this time.  I had absolutely no compunction about harming, even seriously, another if they in some way conflicted with me and my choices.  This is precisely what led to me being advised to seek help, which I did. [Apologies if this is a bit close to 'Soul bearing' for the comfort of some] Now, my point is that this behaviour was considered abnormal but is exactly what is needed for 'the perfect soldier' from the perspective of those who want a soldier who will kill on order without hesitating, agonizing, subverting the techniques/tools, etc.  This would seem to lend some support to the theory outlined earlier about the majority of people, regardless of experience and training being unwilling to kill, but a small minority being willing and efficient.  Today, I suspect that I fall into the 'guardian' group.  Just as I imagine a lot of other tactically aware self-defence oriented MAs do.

Kind of a winding ramble... but I hope I managed to make some sense.

John


----------



## Tgace (Sep 29, 2004)

Enjoying this discussion, and it hasnt developed into an arguement, imagine that! 

Another issue that wasnt addressed in Grossmans or Marshals works (as far as I can recall) was the issue of experience. How different was the performance of veteran soldiers compared to green ones? 

Grossman liked the example of Civil War era muskets being found double, triple or quadruple loaded. He theorized that that was due to the soldiers not wanting to fire and reloading to appear that they had. Not saying this was entirely wrong, but I have seen people do some odd things under stress. Typically inexperienced or untrained people. Hunters ejecting 3-4 rounds at a deer without firing and honestly wondering how they missed. Soldiers/Cops loading magazines in backwards, dropping magazines instead of firing and on and on. Id be willing to bet that soldiers who had been through a battle or three were less likely to have double loaded their guns.

Just to clarify my point, the "human factor" IS an issue in this topic, I just think that its part of the puzzle.

An interesting US military report on this issue...
http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE00/Kilner00.html


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 29, 2004)

I agree about the double loading.  Inexperienced English soldiers in the Napoleonic era often loaded double or fired their 'ram-rod' at the enemy, under stress.  Both situations were 'bad' - the first could easily kill the firer, as the barrel ruptured.  The second lost a necessary tool for reloading, leaving them with an expensive club.  But Muskets were often used as such anyway..

As for the experience question more generally, though - the paper I am searching for clearly showed that in the sampling they did, experience did not affect it.  This is part of why I think it was so interesting.  It suggested that the soldiers really did 'have it' or 'not have it'.  I suspect it is more fluid in that I rather think the experience of combat itself could alter someone's psychology to the point where they become a 'guardian' type.  Equally, we *know* that people have 'become' psychopaths after combat experience.  Argument rages over whether they were 'latent psychopaths' or 'normal' people altered by an horrific experience - i.e. PTSD victims.

I shall go read the link now...

John


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 29, 2004)

As a tangential to the original thread, but much more relevant to our [Tgace & I] discussion..

If you have not already read Larry Niven's _Forever War_ do so. It's one book anyone interested in combat/combatives should read as part of their philosophical education. The most directly relevant part is at the beginning, when they [main character's unit] first face their enemy.

John

[edit] typo ;¬)


----------



## Tgace (Sep 29, 2004)

I would say there ARE those who "have it" and some who "dont have it", but there are also those who can be "lead into having it". I think a lot of it depends on the battle situation too. Taking long range fire from a hard to see enemy is going to result in a different ratio of "performers" than a close ambush where its "kill or be killed". Variable after variable. I agree with the premise of that .mil source I posted too...a lot depends on the psychological "justification" situation the soldier is in as well.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 29, 2004)

Back on the XM-8. Heres a thorough study of it...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-oicw.htm
H&K makes great weapons and this looks promising. Like I said before, I think the optics are too high. Dont see any iron BU sights. Dont like the carry handle thing (pure cosmetic preference) and would have designed a more ergonomic pistol grip. Besides that HK's are tops for quality and reliability. 

This guy dosent like it and has a LOT of interesting opinions on military firearms...
http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/21stcenturyrifle.htm

Cross link to another thread on 6.8 Remington
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14160


----------



## Gaidheal (Oct 1, 2004)

OK, all links read and digested.

Yes, the .mil page on morality of killing and the understanding of it being necessary for troops to be truly effective at killing as well as able to live with it afterwards was interesting.  Not sure I have anything to say on it right now because I'd want to put my thoughts together properly.  Perhaps my next topic.

As for the XM-8.. I think it is a very good solution.  Your man with the interesting opinions has... well... _interesting_ opinions ;¬)

On 6.8 Remington:  I think it is straying into the territory of "solution to a problem that is not there" 5.56mm is an appropriate round for what it was designed for - AR ranges in jungle / urban warfare.  M4 is inadequate in many cases because of the reduced muzzle velocity due to reduced barrel length, not because the round it fires is deficient, per se.  M4 should be firing something more like 9mm for what it is trying to do, but that being the case why not just use an MP5 like most other nations do in that role?

John


----------



## TonyM. (Oct 2, 2004)

During combat in '70 and '71 in the RVN, my experience was that the5.56mm did not drop people. My Colt Python did.


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 2, 2004)

Cool gun, cool gun, COOOOL GUN! 
Want it, want it, want it.

Looks like something out of the Aliens movie... no wait... THAT was a cool rifle because it held 99 rounds and had that 20 round gernade launcher attached (standard). 

The wave of the future. Like... woah dude.


----------



## Gaidheal (Oct 2, 2004)

Tony - only thing that 'drops' someone as a result of a bullet wound is damage to the CNS or sufficient drop in blood pressure (from the big holes you made) to render them unconscious.  I have no doubt that a Python is pretty good at this, but so too is a 5.56mm Assault Rifle.  The rifle will do it with a smaller calibre too, because of the massive increase in velocity which results in fragmentation without sacrificing penetration.  Only rifles are going to realistically do this with small calibres because you need the barrel length to get that kind of velocity.  Below about 3,000 fps there is no additional damage from "temporary stretch cavity" and very little chance of serious fragmentation unless penetration is shallow.

5.56mm rounds from an Assault Rifle such as the SA-80 and M-16 will penetrate just fine.  They also fragment, to an extent, even using ball ammunition.  Penetration is what kills - putting big holes in important bits of the other guy.  Either to destroy his CNS (spine & brain to all intents and purposes) or to drop blood pressure so drastically he can no longer threaten you (and ultimately dies if untreated).  Fragmentation can assist this by making a "near miss" of the spine, for example, a slight hit (doesn't take much) or else by putting more holes in an organ = better bleeding rate.  The temporary cavity thing is pretty minor and only of interest for rifle rounds anyway.. it can cause some additional tissue damage if you are lucky - i.e. more bleeding.

There is no such thing as "Hydro-Static Shock".  The "Energy Dump" is irrelevant, except in as much as it is the energy which allows the bullet to penetrate and destroy tissue.  Shoot someone in the **** with a really high energy bullet, - massive energy dump - and they will probably beat you to death with your own rifle.  They *won't* go into some sort of shock as a result of 'all that energy'.  For the record, a .45 round impact is the same as dropping a bag of sugar (0.5 kg / 1 pound) from 11 feet 6 inches.  Or, to put it another way, being hit by a baseball in a typical game.  It really is not the energy that is the killer, it is the fact the bullet is relatively small and easily penetrates to cause serious tissue damage.

John


----------



## Tgace (Oct 2, 2004)

Gaidheal said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as "Hydro-Static Shock". The "Energy Dump" is irrelevant, except in as much as it is the energy which allows the bullet to penetrate and destroy tissue. Shoot someone in the **** with a really high energy bullet, - massive energy dump - and they will probably beat you to death with your own rifle. They *won't* go into some sort of shock as a result of 'all that energy'. For the record, a .45 round impact is the same as dropping a bag of sugar (0.5 kg / 1 pound) from 11 feet 6 inches. Or, to put it another way, being hit by a baseball in a typical game. It really is not the energy that is the killer, it is the fact the bullet is relatively small and easily penetrates to cause serious tissue damage.
> 
> John


Not quite entirely true in the case of HP rounds. HP are not truly designed to fragment. They expand to allow more energy transfer, more for creating larger wound channels (temporary cavity) than "knock down" power. Otherwise bullets would just be like high velocity ice picks. "Energy Dump" and temporary would cavities are important, when the proper body part is struck. i.e. the torso. The limbs and "****" arent composed of enough fluid to take advantage of the phenomena.

See....A veterinary study, but very thorough. 

http://www.ivis.org/special_books/ortho/chapter_36/36mast.asp



> Soft-point bullets are jacketed, but the lead core exposed at the tip so that they will mushroom or expand upon impact (Fig. 36-7, E and F and Fig. 36-9, E and G). The principle behind this design is to have a small caliber for high velocity with an enlarging point at impact, which greatly increases retardation and energy transfer. Soft-point bullets vary in shape and construction. Some are flat-nosed (Fig. 36-7, B and E), others round-nosed (Fig. 36-7, A and C), and still others are sharp-pointed with varying amounts of lead exposed. Manufacturers have attempted to design bullets that will expand equally at hunting ranges at all striking velocities.





> Hollow-point bullets are jacketed bullets in which the jackets are not completely closed at the tip and no lead is exposed (Fig. 36-7, D and G). These behave in a fashion similar to soft-point jacketed bullets, with the points expanding presumably through the wedging action of the tissues while the bases remain unchanged. Some hollow-point bullets have bronze wedges inserted in the tip to facilitate expansion (Fig. 36-7, H). Expansion of hollow-point bullets is controlled by thickness and hardness of the jacket and by hardness of the cores. Bullet jackets are made with thick walls that taper toward the point. This offers increasing resistance to expansion as the point expands and prevents excess expansion as well as disintegration.





> The second aspect of wounding that contributes to its severity is tissue retentivity. It is not merely the projectile's energy upon impact but rather that which is transferred to the tissues that determines wound extent. Thus, if the bullet penetrates the body but is decelerated to zero and remains within the animal, all its kinetic energy was useful in producing the wound.
> 
> As the projectile moves through the tissues, the tissues that are penetrated offer a resistance proportional to their elasticity, cohesiveness, and density. These tissue properties tend to oppose the bullet's inertia and slow it down. The characteristic pattern of bullet damage is set by these tissue properties.


----------



## Gaidheal (Oct 2, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Not quite entirely true in the case of HP rounds. HP are not truly designed to fragment. They expand to allow more energy transfer, more for creating larger wound channels (temporary cavity) than "knock down" power. Otherwise bullets would just be like high velocity ice picks. "Energy Dump" and temporary would cavities are important, when the proper body part is struck. i.e. the torso. The limbs and "****" arent composed of enough fluid to take advantage of the phenomena.


Actually, I was not attempting to imply that HP rounds fragment (although all bullets do to an extent), so I apologize for any ambiguity.  The velocity becomes more of a factor, in terms of causing damage, for rifle rounds.  Which is implied in your vet data.  This is because below about 3,000 fps (as I stated earlier) the temporary cavity is irrelevant to tissue damage - it simply is not large enough and leads to no permanent damage upon reversal.  My comment about being shot in the **** was about precisely the fact that it matters where you shoot not on some mystical 'stopping power' of a bullet due to "kinetic energy dump".  Having the bullet stop in the target is desirable because it is more efficient (you are not sustaining greater recoil than you need to OR the energy that would otherwise carry the bullet through the target is being used to do something more useful, such as expand it or send fragments out from it into surrounding tissue) and of course you are not going to hit something your target obscures which you never intended to hit.  This latter is trivial, for the most part, though.  Why?  Because unless you have a *seriously* over powered round most of its energy is already spent and it probably will not even penetrate.  Also, it is quite likely it fragments on exit, as a result of the sudden lack of constraining tissue (pressure) - i.e. it explodes on exit.

Handgun rounds are simply not fired with enough total energy to fall into either category.  If you shoot someone with a handgun round which is at 3,000 fps, it would have to be a tiny projectile and would probably expend the majority of its energy deforming and fragmenting, effectively with zero penetration.  E.g. Fackler's comment on Glaser rounds and peritonitis.  The alternative is a round which is slow but very heavy.  Ignoring range for a moment, what tends to happen here is that momentary surface pressue at the target is high enough to prevent penetration and all the energy is dissipated either flattening the round or simply being transmitted to the rest of the body.  As I discussed earlier, the total amount of energy in a bullet is small, in reality; i.e. you get hit by a small 'baseball' - it'll sting, but that's about it.

This is why proper load for a calibre is a balancing act requiring that you determine what kind of scenario it is to be used in.  Military often need more penetration than LEOs and other civilians because they often face scenarios where hard cover and body armour are factors - this tends to lead to them requiring higher overall power at the cost of accepting larger guns and more recoil.  Or simply accepting (as they do) that handguns are not appropriate for engaging such targets, as a rule.  I shift heavily towards the military side-arm view (it's a background thing) and favour large guns with high-power large calibre round optimized for penetration.  This is my personal choice and I don't advocate it as a universal solution; in a house this may be very inappropriate as it is entirely possible for such a round to penetrate light walls, doors or furniture and strike a target you do not want to strike.  Sometimes with as much as 75% of the energy remaining (gypsum is no barrier at all as far as a high-power bullet is concerned, whereas bone and muscle are).

Anyway... back onto JHP - Jacketed Hollow Point is a compromise design.  It is meant to allow expansion but guarantee penetration to a minimum level.  It does this nicely in such rounds as the FBI type 147 grain JHP 9mm.  This round penetrates about 12" I believe, in bare gelatin.  As much as 15" in 'clothed' gelatin.  It expands more in the former, as I understand it (hence the reduced penetration) but would of course have produced 'a bigger hole' which is the point.  In the latter expansion is sacrificed but good penetration is achieved.  Ironically, this would seem to suggest that your are better being naked if you have to face down the FBI ;¬)

All of this backs up what I said about "Hydro-Static Shock" being total nonsense.  If you want I can even find some references, from neuro-surgeons, on the matter.  'Energy Dump' as popularly understood is also a myth.  There is as much energy dump from a baseball hit as there is in a .45 ACP round, as I observed earlier; there is *far* more in a solid punch and a good kick from a MA is about the same energy as a very high-powered hunting round.  That's why it breaks bones and achieves 'one hit drops' sometimes.  A solid punch to the correct target will do so too - e.g. chin, because of the energy being used to bruise the brain (the only good way to incapacitate someone instantly other than breaking the spine).

Well, enough ramble.. kind of losing my thread now...

John


----------



## Tgace (Oct 3, 2004)

Well, the only thing I can add to the discussion is personal experience... I have shot quite a few large animals (Whitetail Deer). A 1oz slug going through and through the chest cavity has a dramitic difference in effect than the same path an arrow would make. Bone being struck or not. Some energy is definately transferred into the body in one vs. the other. Some energy is absoultely "dumped" into the target.



> The second aspect of wounding that contributes to its severity is tissue retentivity. It is not merely the projectile's energy upon impact but rather that which is transferred to the tissues that determines wound extent. Thus, if the bullet penetrates the body but is decelerated to zero and remains within the animal, all its kinetic energy was useful in producing the wound.





> Muscle (specific gravity 1.02 to 1.04) and liver (specific gravity 1.01 to 1.02) have similar densities but react differently to the passage of high-velocity missiles. Skeletal muscle fibers are organized into distinct bundles within connective tissue envelopes. Each muscle fiber is enclosed by a sarcolemma and connective tissue endomysium. Several fibers may be grouped into a perimysium surrounded fasciculus. Several fasciculi wrapped in epimysium form the definitive muscle. The amount of connective tissue varies with the muscle. It includes collagen fibers, elastic fibers, reticular fibers, fibroblasts, and histiocytes. Arteries, veins, and lymphatic vessels form capillary plexuses around the muscle fibers. Nerves accompany the blood vessels. Liver, on the other hand, is covered by thin peritoneum superficially and a thin fibrous capsule which sends septae deep. Any other connective tissue is limited to the arteries, veins, Iymphatics, and bile ducts. The fine reticular fibers that support the reticuloendothelial system offer little resistance to disruptive forces. Both liver and muscle absorb the same amount of energy per centimeter of tissue, but the residual damage to the liver is greater, with.much tissue loss from the permanent cavity. An explanation for this phenomenon has been found in high-speed photographs taken of missiles passing through water, gelatin, and tissues. Early workers explained the explosive cavity through the "accelerated particle theory." In this theory, the bullet's energy is considered to be transferred to the soft tissues in front and to each side. Momentum is imparted and these tissue particles are forced away from the bullet path to act like secondary missiles. Once set in motion, the particle movement continues until its inertia is overcome by tissue resistance, leaving behind a large cavity. This temporary or "explosive" cavity will, at its maximum size, be almost 30 times that of the permanent wound track. This temporary cavity exists for no longer than several milliseconds, during which it undergoes several pulsating reductions to its permanent size, restoring the tissues to near their original positions.(14,27)
> 
> Soft muscle tissues in the path of a high-velocity bullet are pulped.(17) As the cavity expands behind the advancing particles, its walls become quite irregular because of the differential stretching and tearing of muscle and connective tissue, the separation of fascial planes, and the interruption of smaller blood vessels.(29,36) Much of the tissue that is missing from the permanent wound track was blown out in large quantities through tissue "splash" at the bullet entry and exit sites.(19) This loss of tissues occurs in all high-velocity projectile penetrations and perforations. Although muscle tissue may be displaced a considerable distance radially, damage to muscle fibers themselves does not extend very far peripherally.(1,11)Most of the damage is done by the capillary disruption and compromised blood supply. Vascular damage may be extensive for a considerable distance peripherally, with collections of blood filling in the fascial planes between separated muscle fibers.(36) Unless larger blood vessels are directly struck by the bullet, they remain intact when viewed macroscopically. Blood vessels of this size have a good bit of elastic tissue in their walls and are stretched aside by the expanding temporary cavity only to snap back to their resting places when pressures return to normal. There have been reports of intimal tears and thrombosis in some of these vessels in the postinjury period.(36)


----------



## Tgace (Oct 3, 2004)

Of course Im only debating this effect with long-gun (HV) rounds. 

Handguns of any caliber are notoriously poor fight stoppers. A handguns strength is in its portability, (even over its accuracy) not in its "knockdown" power. 

I do see your point though and agree. The "energy dump" Im talking about is in regards to wound damage, not "knockdown power". I agree that knockdown power is probably a myth. Theres plenty of cases of people being shot, some even with fatal head wounds, and not being "knocked down".


----------



## Gaidheal (Oct 3, 2004)

Heh, your second post made any real comment unnecessary. Everything you said is perfectly true for rifle rounds, because they have significant mass at very (for bullets) high velocities. Pistol rounds don't. If you up the velocity you trade off penetration and gain (usually) some expansion. This is always a trade-off but the opinion of most ballistics professionals is that the limiting factor needs to be a minimum penetration of 12" in standard ballistic gelatin. I.e. up the velocity/expansion but only to the point where you have about 12" penetration in gel. Less than that risk seriously compromising the usefulness of the round.

At the kind of speeds rifle bullets go, a smaller projectile will expand a lot more AND penetrate deeply, finally coming to rest (usually) still in the body of the target. This is ideal for any round, but with a rifle round the damage is much greater. This is, obviously, because for the same mass and dimensions it was a much faster bullet. It is perhaps from that fact that some have incorrectly inferred that "faster is better" for any round and then taken it to the next step and the myth of "energy dump" "hydrostatic shock" "one stop shot" and so on.

John

P.S.  As for 'knockdown' or 'knockback' this is a clear case of people inventing something which can be categorically shown to be false by violating a demonstrable physical law.  The law is of course of one Newton's, often quoted as "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".  If you knock a target (human) down you must also be knocked down yourself (or at least have to resist a force strong enough to potentially knock you down.  In practice, if people were delivering that kind of power, they would ALWAYS finish on the floor after EVERY shot, because mechanics dictates that they would rotate about their feet and hit the floor backwards. (A flaw in Matrix, by the way, when Trinity kicks the Police officer at the very start).  Having fired shotguns (and being only a light guy) I can assure you that since I kept my feet they do NOT "blow" people back.  Any fall, stagger, or backwards 'throw' is a psychological reaction on the part of the target.

I realize you were not defending 'knockdown' Tgace, but I thought I'd debunk it anyway, while I was at it ;¬)


----------



## Tgace (Oct 3, 2004)

Thats why we train to "shoot to the ground" (or more PC to "stop the threat") with handgun rounds. The old 2 and assess or 2 to the body, one to the head, is both ineffective and hard to do when the range is short, the engagement a surprise and the adrenaline flowing. More is better with handgun rounds.


----------



## Gaidheal (Oct 3, 2004)

"Tap-tap ... Tap" is strictly for professionals (military personnel). I know for a fact that the SAS are taught to use, even with a handgun whenever possible. I also know that they simply keep firing till the target drops if they are for some reason taken by surprise. Personally I'd shoot till they drop, reload and then think about taking a look to see if they are breathing... if they are and they no longer seem a threat, I'd think about making a call to the emergency services. If not, I would not lose sleep over it if they put me in a situation where I felt justified using a gun. 'PC' looks nice on paper but when it is my life on the line I don't compromize. Goes double for people I love or have sworn to protect.

John

P.S. Reminds me of an anecdote about a young woman being trained to shoot to kill (it was a para-military role and the scenario assumed she was threatened with deadly force) They used a reasonably realistic silhouette type target. She put 3 rounds into the 'centre mass' (heart, lungs) in a nice tight cluster and then 2 more into the head (it was relatively close range, 15 yards I think). The instructor then said "Do you still have rounds left?" she replied "Yes." Thinking this was good. He then said "Can you still see the target?" "Yes.. " <puzzled> "So, why then, if you still have ammunition, are you not still shooting a target that is still there?" ;¬) Made me smile anyway. Kind of makes the point about 'shoot to kill' too. Not that I saying we should make sure anyone we shoot at dies, but you know where I am coming from, I'm sure.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 3, 2004)

Situation makes a world of difference. In tactical scenarios you have the luxury of knowing when you are "going in", gun out, knowing odds are good you will have to shoot. Then its at least possible to get a "flash" sight picture, use some fire discipline etc. But in that situation a pistol wouldnt be my #1 choice. Many/Most LEO type shootings are close and initiated by the BG's actions. Most studies show it becomes a "point and shoot" affair at that point even when the officer is a competition shooter/SWAT/ etc.....


----------



## Gaidheal (Oct 3, 2004)

Not arf mate!

Yeah, as I said, UK special forces are trained to 'shoot properly' i.e. accurate with minimum ammo usage, even with handguns.  But they are also trained to 'just keep shooting till he's down' if the **** hits the fan and they for some reason no longer have the luxury of worrying about ammo left for the next target.  Pistol are not the first choice of any small arms tactical unit I know of.  They do all (that I know) carry relative powerful ones as a side-arm though.

John


----------



## Tgace (Oct 3, 2004)

Heres an article from a hunting magazine that supports your point about "knockdown power"...

http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/shooting/rifles/article/0,13199,614612,00.html


----------



## Tgace (Oct 3, 2004)

Gaidheal said:
			
		

> Pistol are not the first choice of any small arms tactical unit I know of. They do all (that I know) carry relative powerful ones as a side-arm though.
> 
> John


Yep..sometimes you get that dreaded "click" instead of "Bang". Time to transition. 

If theres one criticism I have of the otherwise terrific MP5 is the way the bolt closes on an empty chamber. I know, I know...with the proper discipline you shoud be counting rounds or reloading before it goes dry, but you know about Mr. Murphy too. The fact that you ran dry with the MP is 99.9% the reason you have to transition with that weapon. Very rarely malfunctions.


----------



## Gaidheal (Oct 3, 2004)

Feedback about an empty weapon is nice.  There is any number of reasons why, inexplicably (at the time) your count does not tally with the actual number of rounds left - i.e. you think "2 more" magazine says "nope, your out."

Firefight is not the time to have this argument with your primary weapon, so I can see where you are coming from.  Lots of people like the FN P-90.... 

John


----------



## Tgace (Oct 3, 2004)

The P-90 looks very "cool". Never laid my hands on one though....
http://www.fnhusa.com/contents/tw_p90.htm


----------



## Gaidheal (Oct 3, 2004)

Hehe!  Funny article.  I liked the bit about 'hyper-velocity' - deliberately did not touch on that because it is, to all intents and purposes, irrelevant to a pistol discussion.  Interesting stuff happens because of surface tension interactions at that speed... it is my understanding that, in laymans terms, the steel 'ripples' and the bullet passes through the centre of the thinnest part of the ripple.  I am not committing to that as hard scientific fact, though.  Ballistics is not my expert field (I am a chemist by background, on the hard science side) and I have never cared enough (perhaps till now..) to look into it.

It is very interesting as a phenomenon though... especially to the military ;¬)

John


----------



## Gaidheal (Oct 3, 2004)

P-90 is extremely cool from the simulations I have seen of it working and the glowing reports I have read.  But I have not fired one either.. oh well.  Back to Stargate for a fix of it 'for real' and Infiltration for playing soldier boy running around with one... :¬)

John


----------



## Gaidheal (Oct 3, 2004)

*sniff*


It says they won't sell me one either... <cries>

OK, seriously LOL Classic example of a firearm that really is suitable only for military (possibly LEO) use.  Hope it stays out of the hands of anyone else.

John


----------



## Tgace (Oct 3, 2004)

OK maybe theres 2 criticisms of the MP5...the darn safety selector switch is next to impossible to operate with the firing hand (the AR design is MUCH better). Its so tough to operate under stress most Tac Teams "go in" with the safety off and finger off the trigger....


----------



## Gaidheal (Oct 3, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> ...most Tac Teams "go in" with the safety off and finger off the trigger....


To be brutally honest; I don't see the problem with that.  We are talking about well trained professional firearms users who won't fire until they have acquired a target and identified it as hostile.  Often only then after demanding that the target co-operate immediately and get to the floor or be fired upon.

John


----------



## Tgace (Oct 3, 2004)

Absolutely, when making entry I see no problem in using the trigger finger as your safety. The only "problem" arises when you have to sling the weapon to either cuff/search/or go h2h. An "open" trigger just hanging there to get caught on something is bad juju. If you put the safety on and then need to shoot again quick....I thing you see the point. You want a system that is more efficient to manipulate. The AR safety is so easy to use you can go in safe and flip to fire almost as fast as you can pull the trigger. Ive seen some after market refit kits for the MP, looks promising. I just dont know why HK wont address it. Its a common complaint.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 3, 2004)

Another link....
http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/published/MP5_Safety.PDF.


----------

