I was pretty shocked to see what Tula .223 55gr. did out of a 9" barrel. My question is, why doesn’t anyone load a 55gr load with these bullets? Seems like it could be a very cheap and effective load out of various barrel lengths.
Nothing about that looks good IMO.
Is the gel calibrared? Deep penetration, small wound chanel, I’d opt for a soft point at that price for unobstructed shots.
Just my humble opinions.
That actually performed better than I anticipated.
Maybe we didn’t watch the same video, that stretch cavity was pretty damn nasty from tumbling, very 5.45x39 like.
Exactly why I made the post, it makes me wonder if someone could get a hold or produce these bi-metal bullets cheap and put them in quality brass, with quality low flash powder, primer and seal them. It would make great ammo at relatively cheap cost from virtually any barrel length!
It’s one of those “duh! Why didn’t anyone think of that before” issues…
Yes, but had it expanded or fragged, it would have been much better. Thats all I’m saying. The fact that it didn’t is not good Imo.
When 762x39 or 5.45x39 tumble, they’re arguably more effective than anything that expands or fragments. XM193 looks great at higher velocities (not so great out of SBRs), this round did this out of a 9" barrel with an anemic velocity. Considering the price and lack of availability of premium 5.56 ammo for SBR use (if you want effective terminal ballistics), this tumbling bimetal 5.56 could be very effective and produced cheap compared to premium ammo, that is the salient point. I had no clue cheap Tula ammo would tumble like 5.45.
I get what your saying, but I thought the tula sp and hp looked better, though, to your point, it may have been longer bbl lengths. I’m not sure what they would do from an sbr.
Also, the tc could be exaggerated if it’s not legitimate gel correct?
I don’t think a tumbling beats a fragmenting or expanding round. The tc has more volume and with a fragmenting round, the piece make multiple, permanent wound channels. Where did you get this info? I’m not saying your wrong, just not how I interpreted tests over the years. If I’m wrong, I’d want to learn.
I’m certainly not DocGKR when it comes to ballistics, so I’m the wrong person to ask. I agree fragmenting or expanding is preferred, I was just factoring in cost. Seems the only ammo bimetal .223/5.56 is loaded for is garbage steel cased ammo, a non starter for me for serious use.
I’m not too familiar with the channel, so I’m not sure if the gel was spec’d correctly, I’ll have to look into it. The test definitely had me asking the question why nobody is using bimetal for cheap & effective 5.56.
Great demo and really good frame-stop of the fully expanded photo of the path channel. Wilson Combat offers a 52-grain option that I would imagine may produce similar results.
Ignorant statements like this do not belong in this forum.
Agreed. It is made in defiance of the data from many hundreds of actual OIS.
Ok, I never claimed to be a ballistics expert (as I already alluded to in a previous post) but 7N6 does have its reputation & tumbling bullets certainly do a number on ballistics gel. Please enlighten me, if rounds that tumble aren’t useful in stopping a threat then I would love to get educated on that subject matter.
Any interesting reads regarding tumbling bullets during OIS?
Abundant from DocGKR. Join Lightfighter. Plenty to read. The terminal ballistics of tumbling rounds are simple, and very well understood. Fackler published plenty as well.
Since Molon called me out on the statement made that arguably a tumbling bullet is more effective than anything expanding or fragmenting allow me to clarify that position. Yes, a fragmenting bullet will do massive damage if it is unobstructed with adequate velocity. However, based on everything I’ve learned the weakness of a fragmenting bullet in general is barriers which a tumbling bimetal bullet like 7n6 should have no difficulty with, hence the “arguable” part of that statement. A tumbling bullet moving oblong (sideways) will make a larger wound than a bullet creating an “ice pick” wound, yes or no? A fragmenting bullet in general tends to be velocity dependent vs. a bullet designed to tumble which in general is less velocity dependent, so if the velocity of a fragmenting bullet is below the threshold for fragmentation it is likely to create an ice pick wound, yes or no?
The Fackler study acknowledged the 7n6 tumbles, what it disputed was that it creates a massive wound based on temporary stretch cavity in elastic tissue (an area a fragmenting bullet shines, no disputing that). It acknowledged for example a 7n6 hitting the liver would do massive damage and for whatever reason the study didn’t involve the mediastinum which contains the heart and great vessels among other things. The Fackler study was made to determine how to best treat survivable wounds from a 7N6 (abdomen & extremities) and again a fragmenting round would cause more horrific wounds in these scenarios, I do not or have not ever disputed that.
Again, my disclaimer is I do not claim to be a ballistic expert, but I do know how to read and have an interest in the topic. I still think a tumbling bullet out of a 9" barrel is pretty impressive from a combloc bullet.
I read the title and immediately imagined “How can I bench less” or “Techniques to make my 5” dick feel 3" long to my girlfriend" or “How to make my Toyota Tercel look cheaper” or…