Posted on 03/16/2017 6:49:34 AM PDT by w1n1
A gun specialist and a trauma specialist gives us an answer by reproducing a scene from the 1986 war film, Platoon. With the assistance of a fast camera, we will get a good idea on the degree of harm. The M16 slug 5.56 (.223) is known for its “tumble” which is essentially what causes the harm. 
Nonetheless, while most lead center slugs do this after they enter the tissue, the M16's speed also adds to the injuries. From a distance of 30 feet, what will happen to the ballistic gel mannequin? What will be the impact to the imperative organs? Let's see the full footage here!
Could you survive three AR15 rounds to the chest?
_________________________________________________
No. Next question.
Given their weight, velocity, and kinetic energy displacement when it hits something, and considering what all that does to a human body, I would give it a resounding “no.”
Are you looking for volunteers ?
From the first Ar-15, 1 in 14 twist, no. one will do the job.
Later 1 in 12 twist, no.
Late 1 in 9 twist, good question. Europeans got the bad idea that a fragmenting bullet was bad.
One thing I never understood about the ban on soft nose Dum-Dum bullets, in the military you can burn the enemy, blow him to pieces, hack him to pieces, run over him with a tank tread, but you can’t shoot him with a soft nosed bullet as it is “inhumane”.
From what I’ve been hearing, the 5.56 wasn’t designed to kill. It was designed to wound.
That way, it would make the enemy forces have to use personnel to extract the wounded from the field -meaning less people available for the fight.
That did not always work.
Sometimes the NVA/VC would bury their wounded.
It does not make a clean cut. So, no, you are not likely to live. That is unless the enemy is a lousy shot.
Well, I didn’t say that it would work. That was just the concept behind the 5.56 cartridge.
But as to the original question of the thread, three to the chest would likely be fatal.
If unattended, they would eventually die of a long miserable death. Unless the enemy is N. Korea or some other country who don’t care about human suffering. In which case, they would just be human shields.
Smithsonian video concludes...so it just wasn’t Hollywood fiction. Ya think?? LOL...what idiots.
The original 55 grain bullet out of a 20 inch barrel was very lethal at close range (under 100 yards) but would wound at a distance.
Yep. The Geneva Convention/Law of Armed Conflict creates strange situations.
According to the bits of trivia I see when I play Battlefield 1, the Germans protested the American use of shotguns in WWI. They said the weapons were too devastating.
Agreed!
I did have a friend who took 5 AK rounds in the back & survived.
My brother-in-law was in Korea when the Chinese invaded. The Chinese had so many excess people they thought nothing of throwing massive waves of Chinese against the American lines.
The first wave had rifles. The second had what ever they could find, spears, rocks, unarmed ones expected to pick up rifles from those ahead who had just been shot.
There is a scene in ZULU DAWN which reflects this. As you look down on the battle the Zulus keep running toward the British line. Those in front fall, those behind keep coming, and gaining ground till they roll over the British forces.
This wasn't a movie. Shot 3 times at close range. Once in the front shoulder and twice in the back by 2 different shooters. He didnt make it.
Unless the insurgents just abandon their wounded, in the expectation that WE will take care of them.
Gel shows the wound but a human has bones, hard and soft tissue and dense organs so the actual path of a projectile is inexplicably hard to predict.
Secondly I thought the 5.56 'tumble' has been proven a myth?
I hope so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.