[i]"As for the 30-caliber M1 Carbine vs. M16 comparison, it depends on the thickness of the body part hit. Figure 1 illustrates the problem. About 15% of M16 bullets will act like the wound profile on top, and another 15% like the one on the bottom, with the average wound profile shown in the middle. If a bullet producing a profile like the bottom one penetrates an average human torso, it might well pass through from front to back without yawing—and cause less disruption than the M1 Carbine FMJ bullet over the same bullet path. But the average M16 ball round, at ranges under 100 yds (from a barrel of at least 20 inches), will yaw, break, and fragment in the torso, causing more damage than the M1 Carbine FMJ bullet. This inherent variability in the distance of penetration before yaw occurs is characteristic of all military FMJ ammo. It probably accounts for some of the wide variation in opinion on how much damage various military bullets cause.
Incidentally, some who have seen the M16 wound profile have suggested that it should be an ideal bullet for deer hunting. They point out that bullet should penetrate the shoulder muscles without yaw, thereby losing little of its wounding potential; then it yaws, breaks, and fragments at a depth that should be near the deer’s heart (from the side). Unfortunately, due to the inherent uncertainty illustrated in Figure 1, in about one in six shots the bullet would be likely to shoot through the deer without yawing significantly, and in another it would likely yaw too early, causing a lot of tissue disruption in the shoulder, but never reaching the heart. In contrast, the expanding bullet nearly always starts expanding within an inch of the skin, where its velocity is highest. This makes its effect far more certain and dependable than that of the FMJ bullet.
The major problem with trying to judge a bullet’s effectiveness by observing its effect on the living human, however, is that two bullets traveling at the same angle through a human torso can produce large differences in effect depending on which structures they hit. A 22 Long Rifle bullet that perforates the aorta will most likely have a far more effect than a 44 Magnum bullet that misses the aorta by 1/16 of an inch. Yet their paths would be essentially identical to anybody watching the shooting. Couple this uncertainty with the highly unpredictable psychological reactions of humans to being shot: some shot through the heart will continue firing and give no indication that they have been hit (for the first fifteen seconds at least—during which time they can shoot a lot of bullets), while others who have suffered a superficial graze wound might collapse immediately. These large causes for uncertainty, one anatomic, one physiological, essentially negate the concept of evaluating bullets by observing their effects in gunfights. When I first heard of the “one shot stop” concept, about fifteen years ago, it was immediately obvious that the human anatomy and psychological make-up would thwart the attempt. Then, when the “too good to be true” purported statistics began pouring in; it was again obvious what the authors had elected to do—make up “data” to fit their theory. Yes, it was nice that van Maanen’s simple mathematical comparisons finally proved the “one shot stop” data fabrication beyond a shadow of a doubt for the layman (those with scientific or statistical training had long since figured it out). But I remain amazed at the number of persons who had been taken in: perhaps this is what we should expect from a failing education system.
The problem of the anatomic uncertainty pointed out above has serious consequences for those whose lives depend on the effects of their bullets. How do they protect themselves from the fact that some bullets passing through the center of mass of the torso might just miss every vital structure? Keep shooting so long as the threat remains. One bullet might sneak through without hitting anything that bleeds a lot, but three or more greatly increase the chances of perforating something vital. Of course, the larger the expanded diameter of the bullet the greater the chance it will do the job. But this point can backfire if carried to extremes: bullet expansion decreases bullet penetration depth; and most vital structures lie deep in the torso. Ignoring this caused the unnecessary deaths of two FBI agents in the “Miami Shootout” in 1986. In summary, shoot enough bullets; shoot bullets that have enough penetration potential (12 inches in 10% ordnance gelatin); and shoot them in to the center of the upper part of the torso.
A particular bullet comes to mind, from the Diallo case, that illustrates these points. One of the 9 mm FMJ bullets, used by the New York City PD Officers, struck Amadou Diallo at the top to the curve of his aorta as it passed front-to-back. The bullet struck the aorta’s wall traveling in a path essentially parallel to it. That bullet sliced a one-and-one-half-inch hole in the wall of Mr. Diallo’s aorta. That same bullet then perforated his spine and divided his spinal cord. The criminal case was brought against the policemen because the city pathologist mistakenly thought that this particular shot, which everybody agrees caused his immediate collapse, was one of the first. Actually, the angles of the other shots proved it to be one of the last shots fired. Nobody could have planned that shot—it was a mater of luck. But the luck could not have happened without a bullet that had adequate penetration potential (coming from the front, the bullet had to pass through more than an inch of bone to get to the spinal cord).
In what you cited from DiMaio’s book, I find his “pistol type wounds” and ‘rifle-like wounds” imprecise and somewhat misleading. Would he call the first five inches of the average M16 wound (Fig 1) “pistol type” and the following five inches “rifle-like”? In the wound profile of the M1 Carbine firing a Remington soft-point bullet, the bullet expanded to 63 caliber, lost no weight in fragments, produced a temporary cavity five and one-half inches in diameter, and penetrated 17 inches. I have not done a wound profile of the M1 Carbine FMJ bullet, but would estimate a temporary cavity of three and one-half to four inches and a penetration depth of about 25 inches. The only thing I can do is to give you measurements from shots done under standardized conditions into standardized ordnance gelatin, which has been calibrated for penetration depth, against living muscle. Anybody who wishes to characterize these objective measurements as small, large, rifle-like, pistol type can feel free to do so, but I prefer to communicate such things using numbers wherever possible."[/i]
