# "Shooting to wound" - what % bullshit, medically, tactically and legally? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 17, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393 "2014-07-17T20:02:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/81 "2014-07-21T23:53:57Z")
The early M-16s had a fairly low twist barrel (1 in 9"??) and bullet stability was marginal. The bullets did not tumble at the muzzle, that would lead to for ruble accuracy, but a twig or leaf might be enough to start them tumbling, and they might not need that at longer ranges, say beyond 500 yd. They did tend to tumble in the target. Later versions got faster twist rifling to fix this. ---
**Author:** ![Gbro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Gbro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gbro)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/82 "2014-07-22T00:59:56Z")
[This video](The standard heart rhythm is sinusoidal - the classic thump-thump everyone is familiar with. The heart muscle fibers are all firing in sequence.) Is about Lance Thomas. He was in 4 gunfights. I believe he can shed some light on this topic. As for tactical shooting, i was certified through the University Kansas, Manhattan back in '75 and the firearms instructor taught us to shoot for the top button and to pull the trigger twice, BUT you didn’t hear that from me he added. And the NRA one handed Bulls-eye stance was standard. Things have changed for the better!! ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/83 "2014-07-22T01:52:49Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > I have been in law enforcement of 30 years and have instructed in use-of force for the last 10. I have heard of ANY agency training to shot x number of times and then assess the effect. Something I remembered reading long ago, I will assume due to you and **Loach** ’s superior knowledge in the field I interpreted incorrectly or was reading something that was not common practice characterized as such. ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/84 "2014-07-22T05:42:03Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Any bullet causes hydrostatic shock. A 5.56 round is not designed differently than any other rifle round. It has a full metal jacket bullet at the pointy end. No special charactaristics. If it was designed to specifically tumble more or do more damage it would most likely be outlawed by The Hague Convention. My point was referring to the velocity, which raises the question: in the early 1960s, when the 5.56 round was introduced, was a muzzle velocity of 3,300 fps particularly fast compared, for example, to the 30-06, 308, or 7.62x52 (or is it x51?)? ---
**Author:** ![ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a8b319/32.png) [@ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ryan)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/85 "2014-07-22T06:40:02Z")
No, not particularly. Ammunition doesn’t really change at all once it’s “standardized”. Bullet design may change a bit but the cartridge dimensions are set as it the maximum pressures it can withstand. A 30-06 from WW1 will be nearly identical to one from today. The major reasons for switching to a 22 cal (5.56mm/.223 rem) from a 30 (7.62/.308) were studies showing the large ratio of shots fired:wounds inflicted, the issuance of selective fire weapons (capable of fully automatic fire) and the problems controlling such weapons in full-sized rifle calibers as well of the weight of the ammo load carried by the average infantryman. The 5.56x45 round wasn’t designed to tumble. ALL bullets have a tendency to tumble when striking a solid object. Less so with bigger, heavier or slower bullets It was, and continues to be today, an intermediate class cartridge that attempts to exchange velocity for bullet size and mass as regards to wounding capability. The standard 5.56 NATO load has just slightly more than 1/2 the energy of a 7.62 NATO. Even less these days when fired out of the shorter (14.5") barrel of the M4 currently being issued vs the 20" one of the original M16. ---
**Author:** ![Sasquatch\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8491ac/32.png) [@Sasquatch\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sasquatch_1)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2014, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393/86 "2014-07-28T05:24:21Z")
> [@Ranger\_Jeff](#): > > My point was referring to the velocity, which raises the question: in the early 1960s, when the 5.56 round was introduced, was a muzzle velocity of 3,300 fps particularly fast compared, for example, to the 30-06, 308, or 7.62x52 (or is it x51?)? To answer this question, the older 7.62/.30 Cal rounds had a muzzle velocity of around 2700 fps, so the 5.56 was significantly higher velocity and flatter shooting. More than you’d think from the 600 fps difference, as energy goes up by the square of the velocity, so a bullet at 3300 fps has almost 50% more energy per unit mass than one going 2700 fps. Velocity and bullet expansion are the best ways to get large wound cavities, so with a non-expanding FMJ bullet, higher velocity is a good way to improve lethality. Of course the 5.56 bullet is much smaller than the .30 cal bullet, so it still has less total energy and usually less penetration. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shooting-to-wound-what-bullshit-medically-tactically-and-legally/693393.md?page=4)