It’s presented by Major Glenn Dean and Major David LaFontaine.
I’ve read it a couple times over, and while I find the description of wounding mechanics to be consistent with what I have learned of terminal ballistics, I still have a couple concerns about the data ultimately presented. Still, the article has a lot of good going for it and I encourage everyone to read the article when you have the chance (it’s 7 pages) and draw their own conclusions. I will refrain from adding my own commentary just yet.
Edit: Finished the link, and it’s good to see some of my suspicions confirmed. Bad to see that these are the more influential folks.
Dr. Roberts, would I be correct in assuming that the 6.8 loads that performed better than the 5.56 loads were FMJ-types like current issue ammo, or is JAG more lenient than I originally thought?
Again…hit what you are shooting at, keep hitting it till it dies.
I think I am going to ban all discussion of 5.56 terminal ballistics from my unit until people have demonstrated their ability to accurately place rapid semi-auto shots in to the lethal area and have demonstrated an understanding of not only the NSR, but how to train for it.
Accurately defining the “lethal area” instead of “center mass” should be the focus and can be done at a much lower level.
Center mass may give the highest probability of a hit at medium/longer range and was probably good doctrine against cold war era threats. Any chest wound would likely turn a conscript into a casualty but we are not fighting that war.
Doc
I definitely agree…I’d rather have my guys be able to differentiate as well. They will.
I had an instructor once who explained it this way;
“There are two ways to ‘defeat the human weapons system’ with a rifle, pistol or shotgun…one is to drain the radiator, the other is to unplug the machine. Draining the radiator is lowering the blood pressure to zero by making them bleed out. Unplugging the machine is severing the CNS.” ie, the more they bleed, the faster they bleed out…the best way to make them bleed fast is to put many holes in them as fast as you can, but don’t expect instant incapacitation unless you can hit the CNS
I’d be nice if somebody offered a target with “arms” outstretched, as if holding a handgun in an isosceles mount that “obstructs” a clear shot to the upper torso.
I’d also like to see a target offered in a 3/4 and 90-degree profile.
A target with “arms” hanging at its sides or “pointing” a handgun as if the bad guy is hip shooting is unrealistic.
I’ve seen targets before with the gun outstretched but cannot remember where. It seemed more like a shoot/don’t shoot type of target (with this one obviously being a SHOOT one) than one intended to address the issue you raise.
The 3/4 and side-on presentation can be done using either 3 dimensional dummy targets or by bending a normal paper head and torso target around in a semicircle, lengthwise, and then attaching to a target frame and turning it appropriately. I know that Louis Awerbuck uses both of these techniques in his classes and other instructors may do so as well.
