03-04-2013, 12:38 AM
JAS,
The wounding mechanism has to do with bullet construction as much as shape. One issue with 7.62 mm NATO is that it doesn't yaw rapidly in soft tissue. Of course, it doesn't need to, because it makes a pretty large hole without upsetting.
I am not relying on velocity and retained energy to achieve terminal effectiveness, but rather construction. As I mentioned, I favor lead-free not because of the absence of lead but because of the addition of steel. Steel penetrates very well, but it has also to yaw in soft tissue.
If the Grendel upsets more rapidly and more reliably, then, yes, you could be right: a GPC wouldn't need as much energy as 7.62 mm. I haven't seen any gel tests with Grendel, so if anyone can provide data on how an FMJ Grendel performs in soft tissue, then I'd be interested to see it. So is, M855A1 - but no one else in NATO is using it due to stricter interpretation of Hague / Geneva Conventions.
Stan C,
Thanks for correcting me on that.
The wounding mechanism has to do with bullet construction as much as shape. One issue with 7.62 mm NATO is that it doesn't yaw rapidly in soft tissue. Of course, it doesn't need to, because it makes a pretty large hole without upsetting.
I am not relying on velocity and retained energy to achieve terminal effectiveness, but rather construction. As I mentioned, I favor lead-free not because of the absence of lead but because of the addition of steel. Steel penetrates very well, but it has also to yaw in soft tissue.
If the Grendel upsets more rapidly and more reliably, then, yes, you could be right: a GPC wouldn't need as much energy as 7.62 mm. I haven't seen any gel tests with Grendel, so if anyone can provide data on how an FMJ Grendel performs in soft tissue, then I'd be interested to see it. So is, M855A1 - but no one else in NATO is using it due to stricter interpretation of Hague / Geneva Conventions.
Stan C,
Thanks for correcting me on that.