That's the same unsubstantiated hype put out by everyone from McNamara's underlings in the 1960's to the gun writers of today. My experience is that a .224" diameter bullet at about 3,000 feet per second just doesn't cut it or real, living beings. Regardless of how it works in ballistic gelatin, all of the wound channels I've cut out of the deer that I've shot with a .223 show markedly less disruption than those from equivalent .30" diameter bullets. Whether the bullet is going straight, sideways, or fragmented, the wound channel is simply much smaller than those that get 90% kill ratios. Assuming this shooter isn't getting head shots, I think he is using a faster round than a .223 Remington.
>Gross or microscopic instability, or bullet "yaw", plays a very large part in internal destruction...
That's the same unsubstantiated hype put out by everyone
I've never paid any attention to McNamara, and, of course, gun writers must write creatively to sell magazines.
No, my comments in #185 are based on the research of gun shot wounds by Col. Frank T. Chamberlin, U.S. Army Medical Corps. - and ballistic gelatin was not considered in the study I have. Col. Chamberlin's experiences with actual gunshot wounds to people along with his experiments with live animals constitute an interesting body of work. Some of it may be accessable via the net, I do not know. Sobering reading if you can find it.