Full Metal Jacket Ammo For Fox

[Deker 3,478]

 

 

Fmj.

I'm sure I've seen that rifle somewhere before , but being an old boy I've forgotten, my guess would be .38 or .357 or 44-40....whatever, circa 300-800ft lb across that range!

 

Am I close?

357m mate.

 

These bullets had a flat which must of helped however a 22250 will have alot more velocity.

 

A friend tried some 45grn full patch in his 22250 and they did fine on fox too.

 

U.

 

 

[shropshire dan 467]

Thanks all. Went out this morning and got a vixen at 140 yards using the FMJ ammo. All I seen was a puff of fluff and the fox ran 25 meters before dropping. The shot was a bit further back than I wanted but she dropped so ill keep using this ammo for now. I'm guessing at longer range as the round slows Down it shall be a little more devastating on fox. Had a pin hole entrance and roughly 2 inch exit hole. That'll do me

 

Thanks again all

[SportingShooter 0]

 

 

Dunblane, not hungerford yeah?

 

Has anyone used them, other than me?

 

U.

Hungerford

 

The Deer Act and the prohibition on non-expanding was 1991

1996/7 for expanding ammo restrictions.

Think it was the late sixties for the deer act and hingerford resulted in auto rifles and slide actions being banned except 22 rimfires.

Also certain shotgun restrictions.

Hungerford involved a auto rifle using fmj ammo!

 

Dumblane involved expanding ammunition in the crime.

 

U.

 

 

I stand corrected, wires were crossed.

 

You're right, it was the Firearms Amendment Act 1997 for expanding ammunition/missiles.

 

The original Deer Act from 1963 was repealed by the 1991 Act and stipulated expanding, I haven't read the original to know whether it was a carry over

 

Perhaps one day, as they've hinted at, there won't be a need to read 60+ pieces of legislation to find the answer.

[Underdog 2,337]

Thanks all. Went out this morning and got a vixen at 140 yards using the FMJ ammo. All I seen was a puff of fluff and the fox ran 25 meters before dropping. The shot was a bit further back than I wanted but she dropped so ill keep using this ammo for now. I'm guessing at longer range as the round slows Down it shall be a little more devastating on fox. Had a pin hole entrance and roughly 2 inch exit hole. That'll do me

 

Thanks again all

There yer go, well done.

[Underdog 2,337]

 

 

 

 

Dunblane, not hungerford yeah?

 

Has anyone used them, other than me?

 

U.

Hungerford

 

The Deer Act and the prohibition on non-expanding was 1991

1996/7 for expanding ammo restrictions.

Think it was the late sixties for the deer act and hingerford resulted in auto rifles and slide actions being banned except 22 rimfires.

Also certain shotgun restrictions.

Hungerford involved a auto rifle using fmj ammo!

 

Dumblane involved expanding ammunition in the crime.

 

U.

I stand corrected, wires were crossed.

 

You're right, it was the Firearms Amendment Act 1997 for expanding ammunition/missiles.

 

The original Deer Act from 1963 was repealed by the 1991 Act and stipulated expanding, I haven't read the original to know whether it was a carry over

 

Perhaps one day, as they've hinted at, there won't be a need to read 60+ pieces of legislation to find the answer.

No worries bud.

 

U.

[Alsone 789]

 

Do you ever stop reading, they were NEVER designed to wound, and if you put the 5.56 in the right place, even at distance, it will still kill you.

 

Of course it isn't as effective at killing as a 7.62, the 5.56 has roughly half the energy of the 7.62, and that means there is a bigger chance of wounding than with a 7.62, that happens to be a bi product, a very unfortunate one for some combat soldiers.

 

It was developed/introduced as a cost measure, end of, any and everything else just happens to accompany that!

 

Would you like to stand 200 yards in front of someone who can handle a 5.56 and make a judgment on its wounding/killing capabilities?

 

 

 

Maybe you ought to do more reading Deker. As I tied you into the book above, it's long been a military principle that wounding is preferable to killing on the battlefield because it ties up resources.

 

Maybe you'll believe Frank C Barnes, one of the world's most famous and foremost ammunition experts. In his book "Cartridges of the World: An illustrated reference for more than 1500 cartridges" he says the following (bottom of page 1st left hand side in the link):

 

 

Hunters should not use military ammunition loaded with full metal jacket bullets. These bullets are designed to wound not kill.

 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=02CYCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA487&lpg=PA487&dq=us+ammo+military+designed+to+wound&source=bl&ots=bF5IJoh-i1&sig=vEGn6ZUYhw1rvGeWqHt_z7bHsHE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQrazLk6rMAhXE5xoKHR0wBOQQ6AEITzAJ#v=onepage&q=us%20ammo%20military%20designed%20to%20wound&f=false

 

There is some argument (not in that book) whether the bullets themselves are specifically designed to wound or whether that comes from the specification of FMJ design features in general which are designed to minimise shock damage and thus physical damage (thereby increasing wounding (the result of the Geneva / Hague conventions)), but that is largely irrelevant. The fact is FMJ is military ammunition and is of a design that is inherently poor at energy transference and inherently good at wounding.

 

BTW ballistic gels and high speed cameras along with real wound analysis is done for assessing combat efficiency. The MOD controversially actually shoot live pigs both to asses bullets and train medics / try out new medical techniques: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2590513/MoD-animal-cruelty-row-emerges-live-pigs-blown-up.html

 

I could refer you to other books on gunshot wound theory and practice but I won't waste my time. Suffice to say, it's as Walshie and I both said, the damage done by a round has little to do with it's kinetic energy but rather the amount of kinetic energy that is transferred to the tissues. FMJ's are very inefficient at energy transfer and against thin bodied animals with low muscle mass, the chances of wounding is much higher than with expanding ammunition. Yes it's true what you say a larger round transfers more energy even if it doesn't expand, but that's because it's larger! It's the difference between being clipped on the leg by a car or a bus. But neither causes the damage of a car that transfers all it's energy by hitting you full on!

 

Underdog, nice pics, however I'm quite aware that FMJ will kill. That's never the issue. It's more the chance of wounding in assessing suitability, and the chances of wounding is much higher with FMJ than expanding as FMJ is inherently designed to stay together and create the minimum of wound channels in line with the Geneva requirements.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Alsone

[Deker 3,478]

 

 

Do you ever stop reading, they were NEVER designed to wound, and if you put the 5.56 in the right place, even at distance, it will still kill you.

 

Of course it isn't as effective at killing as a 7.62, the 5.56 has roughly half the energy of the 7.62, and that means there is a bigger chance of wounding than with a 7.62, that happens to be a bi product, a very unfortunate one for some combat soldiers.

 

It was developed/introduced as a cost measure, end of, any and everything else just happens to accompany that!

 

Would you like to stand 200 yards in front of someone who can handle a 5.56 and make a judgment on its wounding/killing capabilities?

 

 

 

Maybe you ought to do more reading Deker. As I tied you into the book above, it's long been a military principle that wounding is preferable to killing on the battlefield because it ties up resources.

 

Maybe you'll believe Frank C Barnes, one of the world's most famous and foremost ammunition experts. In his book "Cartridges of the World: An illustrated reference for more than 1500 cartridges" he says the following (bottom of page 1st left hand side in the link):

 

 

Hunters should not use military ammunition loaded with full metal jacket bullets. These bullets are designed to wound not kill.

 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=02CYCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA487&lpg=PA487&dq=us+ammo+military+designed+to+wound&source=bl&ots=bF5IJoh-i1&sig=vEGn6ZUYhw1rvGeWqHt_z7bHsHE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQrazLk6rMAhXE5xoKHR0wBOQQ6AEITzAJ#v=onepage&q=us%20ammo%20military%20designed%20to%20wound&f=false

 

There is some argument (not in that book) whether the bullets themselves are specifically designed to wound or whether that comes from the specification of FMJ design features in general which are designed to minimise shock damage and thus physical damage (thereby increasing wounding (the result of the Geneva / Hague conventions)), but that is largely irrelevant. The fact is FMJ is military ammunition and is of a design that is inherently poor at energy transference and inherently good at wounding.

 

BTW ballistic gels and high speed cameras along with real wound analysis is done for assessing combat efficiency. The MOD controversially actually shoot live pigs both to asses bullets and train medics / try out new medical techniques: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2590513/MoD-animal-cruelty-row-emerges-live-pigs-blown-up.html

 

I could refer you to other books on gunshot wound theory and practice but I won't waste my time. Suffice to say, it's as Walshie and I both said, the damage done by a round has little to do with it's kinetic energy but rather the amount of kinetic energy that is transferred to the tissues. FMJ's are very inefficient at energy transfer and against thin bodied animals with low muscle mass, the chances of wounding is much higher than with expanding ammunition. Yes it's true what you say a larger round transfers more energy even if it doesn't expand, but that's because it's larger! It's the difference between being clipped on the leg by a car or a bus. But neither causes the damage of a car that transfers all it's energy by hitting you full on!

 

Underdog, nice pics, however I'm quite aware that FMJ will kill. That's never the issue. It's more the chance of wounding in assessing suitability, and the chances of wounding is much higher with FMJ than expanding as FMJ is inherently designed to stay together and create the minimum of wound channels in line with the Geneva requirements.

 

 

 

This is the trouble with someone who reads too much and has no experience. Nobody is arguing that a FMJ is more likely to pass through and impart less energy than an equivalent expanding ammo.

 

What you simply don't understand is 1500-1600 ft lb of energy in a FMJ still imparts FAR more energy into a fox than is required to stop it, even if it goes clean through, which an awful lot of 22-250 expanding ammo will also do when hitting a fox. How far do you think a fox will run when you take its head off with a 22-250 FMJ, or front chest shoot it , or remove its heart, etc.

 

It's going nowhere, just like a person shot in these areas with a FMJ 5.56, your wounding scenario is a ridiculous joke when the shot is put in the right place! Tell all the dead soldiers killed with 5.56 that they are just unlucky as the ammo they were hit with was designed to wound them, not kill them! (my apologies for than rather distasteful analogy and my respect to all servicemen). IF you are hit somewhere important with a FMJ you are dead, if you are hit somewhere less important with a FMJ then you have a better survival/recovery chance than someone hit in the same place with an equivalent expanding ammo, as the area will likely suffer less trauma, that does NOT mean the FMJ is designed to wound! And seeing as you read so much have you worked out if its the Geneva or Hague yet?

 

You can argue as much as you like and read as many books as you want, you are not walking away from a 5.56 through your head etc, neither is a fox with a 22-250 FMJ.

 

You just don't get it, if you had ever shot a fox or had a FAC you may understand a little better.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Deker

[riohog 5,701]

 

 

Do you ever stop reading, they were NEVER designed to wound, and if you put the 5.56 in the right place, even at distance, it will still kill you.

 

Of course it isn't as effective at killing as a 7.62, the 5.56 has roughly half the energy of the 7.62, and that means there is a bigger chance of wounding than with a 7.62, that happens to be a bi product, a very unfortunate one for some combat soldiers.

 

It was developed/introduced as a cost measure, end of, any and everything else just happens to accompany that!

 

Would you like to stand 200 yards in front of someone who can handle a 5.56 and make a judgment on its wounding/killing capabilities?

 

 

 

Maybe you ought to do more reading Deker. As I tied you into the book above, it's long been a military principle that wounding is preferable to killing on the battlefield because it ties up resources.

 

Maybe you'll believe Frank C Barnes, one of the world's most famous and foremost ammunition experts. In his book "Cartridges of the World: An illustrated reference for more than 1500 cartridges" he says the following (bottom of page 1st left hand side in the link):

 

 

Hunters should not use military ammunition loaded with full metal jacket bullets. These bullets are designed to wound not kill.

 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=02CYCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA487&lpg=PA487&dq=us+ammo+military+designed+to+wound&source=bl&ots=bF5IJoh-i1&sig=vEGn6ZUYhw1rvGeWqHt_z7bHsHE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQrazLk6rMAhXE5xoKHR0wBOQQ6AEITzAJ#v=onepage&q=us%20ammo%20military%20designed%20to%20wound&f=false

 

There is some argument (not in that book) whether the bullets themselves are specifically designed to wound or whether that comes from the specification of FMJ design features in general which are designed to minimise shock damage and thus physical damage (thereby increasing wounding (the result of the Geneva / Hague conventions)), but that is largely irrelevant. The fact is FMJ is military ammunition and is of a design that is inherently poor at energy transference and inherently good at wounding.

 

BTW ballistic gels and high speed cameras along with real wound analysis is done for assessing combat efficiency. The MOD controversially actually shoot live pigs both to asses bullets and train medics / try out new medical techniques: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2590513/MoD-animal-cruelty-row-emerges-live-pigs-blown-up.html

 

I could refer you to other books on gunshot wound theory and practice but I won't waste my time. Suffice to say, it's as Walshie and I both said, the damage done by a round has little to do with it's kinetic energy but rather the amount of kinetic energy that is transferred to the tissues. FMJ's are very inefficient at energy transfer and against thin bodied animals with low muscle mass, the chances of wounding is much higher than with expanding ammunition. Yes it's true what you say a larger round transfers more energy even if it doesn't expand, but that's because it's larger! It's the difference between being clipped on the leg by a car or a bus. But neither causes the damage of a car that transfers all it's energy by hitting you full on!

 

Underdog, nice pics, however I'm quite aware that FMJ will kill. That's never the issue. It's more the chance of wounding in assessing suitability, and the chances of wounding is much higher with FMJ than expanding as FMJ is inherently designed to stay together and create the minimum of wound channels in line with the Geneva requirements.

 

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa since when did fox,s come under geneva requirements ? ffs get a catapult chap leave rifles and balistics to the big boys

[barryb 3]

think youll find you will get a lot of runners as you will just drill them and they go off to a lingering death, head shots will be ok though

[Born Hunter 17,763]

LOL its garbage no matter who's saying it, it can not be backed by evidence!

 

http://militaryarms.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/the-poodle-killer-myth.html

 

There were a few design criteria for the 556 and none of them were about wounding. The biggest military criticism of any round is its lethality! Time and again studies and reports speak very clearly on the desire to improve a cartridges lethality!

 

Designed to wound is bullshit!

[Deker 3,478]

sorry, double post for some reason!

Edited April 25, 2016 by Deker

[Born Hunter 17,763]

Let's get something else clear, the FMJ was only adopted exclusively because the Hague Convention banned expanding bullets. Militaries want weapons that kill and they continually work to make the FMJ more lethal as a way of working around the Hague Convention.

 

Nevertheless, the 556 was not designed to wound, it was designed to optimise the combat effectiveness of infantry and the FMJ is not used exclusively in war because it wounds it's used because the Hague Convention banned expanding ammo!

Edited April 25, 2016 by Born Hunter

[shropshire dan 467]

Train soldiers to shoot better lol

[Underdog 2,337]

 

 

 

 

 

Do you ever stop reading, they were NEVER designed to wound, and if you put the 5.56 in the right place, even at distance, it will still kill you.

 

Of course it isn't as effective at killing as a 7.62, the 5.56 has roughly half the energy of the 7.62, and that means there is a bigger chance of wounding than with a 7.62, that happens to be a bi product, a very unfortunate one for some combat soldiers.

 

It was developed/introduced as a cost measure, end of, any and everything else just happens to accompany that!

 

Would you like to stand 200 yards in front of someone who can handle a 5.56 and make a judgment on its wounding/killing capabilities?

 

 

Maybe you ought to do more reading Deker. As I tied you into the book above, it's long been a military principle that wounding is preferable to killing on the battlefield because it ties up resources.

 

Maybe you'll believe Frank C Barnes, one of the world's most famous and foremost ammunition experts. In his book "Cartridges of the World: An illustrated reference for more than 1500 cartridges" he says the following (bottom of page 1st left hand side in the link):

 

Hunters should not use military ammunition loaded with full metal jacket bullets. These bullets are designed to wound not kill.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=02CYCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA487&lpg=PA487&dq=us+ammo+military+designed+to+wound&source=bl&ots=bF5IJoh-i1&sig=vEGn6ZUYhw1rvGeWqHt_z7bHsHE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQrazLk6rMAhXE5xoKHR0wBOQQ6AEITzAJ#v=onepage&q=us%20ammo%20military%20designed%20to%20wound&f=false

 

There is some argument (not in that book) whether the bullets themselves are specifically designed to wound or whether that comes from the specification of FMJ design features in general which are designed to minimise shock damage and thus physical damage (thereby increasing wounding (the result of the Geneva / Hague conventions)), but that is largely irrelevant. The fact is FMJ is military ammunition and is of a design that is inherently poor at energy transference and inherently good at wounding.

 

BTW ballistic gels and high speed cameras along with real wound analysis is done for assessing combat efficiency. The MOD controversially actually shoot live pigs both to asses bullets and train medics / try out new medical techniques: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2590513/MoD-animal-cruelty-row-emerges-live-pigs-blown-up.html

 

I could refer you to other books on gunshot wound theory and practice but I won't waste my time. Suffice to say, it's as Walshie and I both said, the damage done by a round has little to do with it's kinetic energy but rather the amount of kinetic energy that is transferred to the tissues. FMJ's are very inefficient at energy transfer and against thin bodied animals with low muscle mass, the chances of wounding is much higher than with expanding ammunition. Yes it's true what you say a larger round transfers more energy even if it doesn't expand, but that's because it's larger! It's the difference between being clipped on the leg by a car or a bus. But neither causes the damage of a car that transfers all it's energy by hitting you full on!

 

Underdog, nice pics, however I'm quite aware that FMJ will kill. That's never the issue. It's more the chance of wounding in assessing suitability, and the chances of wounding is much higher with FMJ than expanding as FMJ is inherently designed to stay together and create the minimum of wound channels in line with the Geneva requirements.

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa since when did fox,s come under geneva requirements ? ffs get a catapult chap leave rifles and balistics to the big boys

Can you get expanding ammo for catties?!

U. Lol.

[Underdog 2,337]

Here is an expanding bullet that don't expand. What it says on the tin don't happen!

Fmj.

 

U