User talk:BufordTJustice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on 5.56x45mm NATO. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place below. Tiptoety talk 18:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)



I have been going back and forth with Nukes4Tots in attempting to update the Performance section of the 5.56x45mm NATO page. Inadequate and inaccurate data was supplied on the original page. I am not blaming anybody, nor am I disparaging any of the hard work that has been done on this page so far. However, the page is inaccurate and incomplete right now. Full disclosure is required as a matter of ethical duty to the reader. A brief example can be seen below:

"There has been much criticism of the poor performance of the bullet on target, especially the first-shot kill rate when using firearms that don't achieve the velocity to cause fragmentation. This typically becomes an issue at longer ranges (over 100 m) or when penetrating heavy clothing, but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5-inch (37 cm) barrel of the U.S. military's M4 carbine can be particularly prone to this problem. At short ranges, the bullet is reported to be mostly effective, and its tendency to fragment reduces the risk of overpenetration when used at close range. However, if the bullet is moving too slowly to reliably fragment on impact, the wound size and potential to incapacitate a person is greatly reduced. "

This is a Gross oversimplification of this topic. Here are some examples of vague areas that beg for clarification or correction (which, by definition, requires more information):


 * There is no 'first shot kill rate'; false statistic...this specific statistic is not documented or tabulated by the Military. There are many documented instances of mortal wounds (with rounds that properly fragmented) that failed to incapacitate the aggressor.


 * "...using firearms that don't achieve the velocity to cause fragmentation." All current 5.56x45mm firearms achieve this velocity (2700 fps). Period. The M4 (14.5" barrel) has an M855 MV of 2940 fps and the Navy Mk 18 Mod 0 (10.5" barrel) has a MV of 2750 fps. This statement is factually inaccurate. (http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_velocity.html)


 * "This typically becomes an issue at longer ranges (over 100 m) or when penetrating heavy clothing, but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5-inch (37 cm) barrel of the U.S. military's M4 carbine can be particularly prone to this problem." The 5.56x45mm, when fired from an M4, drops below 2700 fps at roughly 40 meters. The M16 drops to 2700 fps at 140-150 meters. Where did this 100 meter number come from? Either way, it would be wrong on both accounts. (http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_fragrange.html)


 * "At short ranges, the bullet is reported to be mostly effective, and its tendency to fragment reduces the risk of overpenetration when used at close range." Reported by whom to be 'mostly effective'? Certainly NOT by SOCOM, who has opted for a complete transition to the Mk262 Mod 0 & Mod 1 rounds (77grain OTM SMK). About all I hear regarding this ammo is its ineffectiveness and its unreliable terminal performance at any distance. (http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_m855yaw.html)

These are a few examples. It is my desire to add some very critical and useful information to this topic. I am not a copy write, by any means, so please feel free to clean-up the information I add. The article as it stands is quite inaccurate, vague, and misleading regarding the topic of terminal ballistics and the 5.56x45mm NATO round.

As for the image from Dr. Martin Fackler regarding military rifle cartridge wound profiles; this was generated while Dr. Fackler worked for the U.S. Army. There are no copyright issues here. Nor are there copyright issues regarding the text. If i need additional cites in some places, please let me know. I will pull them out of my archive. Propsed text revision for the Performance Section of the article:



The 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge with the standard military ball bullet (NATO: SS109; U.S.: M855) will penetrate approximately 15 to 20 inches (38 to 50 cm) into soft tissue in ideal circumstances. As with all spitzer shaped projectiles it is prone to yaw in soft tissue. However, at impact velocities above roughly 2,700 ft/s (820 m/s), it may yaw and then fragment at the cannelure (the crimping groove around the cylinder of the bullet).[citation needed] These fragments can disperse through flesh and bone, inflicting additional internal injuries.[4] Fragmentation, if and when it occurs, imparts much greater damage to human tissue than bullet dimensions and velocities would suggest. This fragmentation effect is highly dependent on velocity, and therefore barrel length: short-barreled carbines generate less muzzle velocity and therefore lose wounding effectiveness at much shorter ranges than longer-barreled rifles.

There has been much criticism of the poor performance of the bullet on target, especially the first-shot kill rate when using firearms that don't achieve the velocity to cause fragmentation. Wounding Info This wounding problem has been cited in incidents beginning in the first Gulf war, Somalia, and ending in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent lab testing of M855, it has been shown that the bullets do not fragment reliably or consistently from round-to-round, displaying widely variable performance. In several cases, yawing did not begin until 7"-10" of penetration. This was with all rounds coming from the same manufacturer. Wounding Info This lack of wounding capacity typically becomes an issue at increasingly shorter ranges (beyond 45m when using an M4 or 140m when using an M16 w/ a 20" barrel) or when penetrating heavy clothing, but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5-inch (37cm) barrel of the U.S. military's M4 carbine generates considerably less initial velocity than its big brother, the 20" barreled M16 and terminal performance can be a particular problem with the M4.

From Gary K. Roberts, DDS:

"Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56x45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite their being hit multiple times by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing or fragmenting. This failure to yaw and fragment can be caused by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short barrel weapons or when the range increases. It can also occur when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the chest of a thin, malnourished individual, as the bullet may exit the body before it has a chance to yaw and fragment. In addition, bullets of the SS109/M855 type are manufactured by many countries in numerous production plants. Although all SS109/M855 types must be 62 gr. FMJ bullets constructed with a steel penetrator in the nose, the composition, thickness, and relative weights of the jackets, penetrators, and cores are quite variable, as are the types and position of the cannelures. Because of the significant differences in construction between bullets within the SS109/M855 category, terminal performance is quite variable—with differences noted in yaw, fragmentation, and penetration depths. Luke Haag’s papers in the AFTE Journal (33(1):11-28, Winter 2001) describe this problem." However, if the bullet is moving too slowly to reliably fragment on impact, the wound size and potential to incapacitate a person is greatly reduced. Several alternate cartridges have been developed in an attempt to address the perceived shortcomings of 5.56mm ammunition including the 6.5 mm Grendel and the 6.8 mm Remington SPC." (The Wounding Effects of 5.56mm/.223 Law Enforcement General Purpose Shoulder Fired Carbines Compared with 12 Ga. Shotguns and Pistol Caliber Weapons Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant) Wounding Info

Recently, advances have been made in 5.56mm ammunition. The US military has adopted for limited issue a 77-grain (5.0 g) "Open Tip Match" bullet, type classified as the Mk 262 Mod 0 (without canellure) & Mod 1 (with cannelure). The heavy Sierra Match King bullet, with a lightly constructed jacket, fragments more violently at a shorter range than the M855 and also has a wider fragmentation velocity envelope. Originally designed for use in the Mk 12 SPR, the ammunition has found favor with special forces units who were seeking a more effective cartridge to fire from their M4A1 carbines. It should be noted that these heavy-for-caliber loadings sacrifice penetrative ability for their increased terminal performance. The M855 currently struggles to penetrate thin car doors or wood framed buildings and maintain wounding performance; the Mk262 Mod 0 & Mod 1 heavy bullets have shown reduced penetrative ability as compared to M855.

Performance of 5.56x45mm military ammunition can generally be categorized as almost entirely dependent upon velocity in order to wound effectively. Heavy OTM bullets enhance soft tissue wounding ability at shorter and longer ranges; however, this comes at the expense of hard-target/barrier penetration.



Please feel free to edit for grammar, punctuation, structure, and cleanliness. I strongly feel that this information provides valuable insight into the terminal ballistics of the 5.56x45mm NATO round. Perhaps another section on External Ballistics is warranted?

7.62x39mm Update edits
Nukes4Tots apparently has some issues with adding additional, current, and factual information onto firearms related pages.

The additional information that I created on the 7.62x39mm page has been deleted yet again for no reason. I am a Law student and am intimately familiar with copyright law (got an A in the class, for the record). There have been no copyright violations on any of my edits. The image that nukes4Tots says is a copyright violation has been properly cited in its image upload information. The information added represent a vital recent development with regard to 7.62x39mm ammunition's terminal performance. I have shot wet-pack, pine logs, and water jugs with his round, as have I studied David Fortier's use of it c/o a sniper's paradise article. The picture is a legitimate shot of the gel block used in test for the 8M3 Wolf MC hollow point round. It is neither a copyright violation, nor is it a fabrication.

Additionally why is Nukes4Tots edit focus on removing information that highlights the deficiencies of the AR platform and its round and diminishing it's 'main competition' (the 7.62x39mm round and the AK47/AKM/AK74)? This is editorial bias at its worst. Does Nukes4Tots have a vendetta against the AK platform or a decided bias in favor of the AR platform and its round....or both?

In what universe is the addition of factual information a POV edit? I hope that it is not this universe.

I call Nukes4Tots personal bias into question on the following pages: the M16 vs AK47 page, 5.56x45mm page, 7.62x39mm page. Nukes4Tots has labeled my factual information additions as non-factual and I find this to be suspect behavior. Consider this a challenge, Nukes4Tots. You show me verifiable facts that prove that the facts which I have presented are incorrect. If you can present timely, factual data to this end, I will stop this pursuit. If you cannot, I will simply continue, through whatever means Wikipedia deems appropriate, to pursue disclosing ALL of the facts on the mentioned web pages. Proposed edits for the 7.62x39mm page include the two removed pictures and the following text edits:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ In the 1960s the Yugoslavians experimented with new bullet designs to produce a round with a superior wounding profile, speed, and accuracy to the M43. Dr. Fackler also evaluated the M67 in the same manner that he evaluated the M43. The M67 projectile is shorter and flatter-based than the M43. This is mainly due to the deletion of the mild steel insert. This has the side effect of shifting the center of gravity rearward in comparison to the M43. This allows the projectile to destabilize nearly 17 cm earlier in tissue. This causes a pair of large stretch cavities at a depth likely to cause effective wound trauma. When the temporary stretch cavity intersects with the skin at the exit area, a larger exit wound will result, which takes longer to heal. Additionally, when the stretch cavity intersects a stiff organ like the liver, it will cause damage to that organ.

However, without fragmentation, the wounding potential of M67 is mostly limited to the small permanent wound channel the bullet itself creates while tumbling in tissue. While a fragmenting round (like some loadings of the 5.56x45mm NATO) might cause massive tissue trauma and blood loss (and thus rapid incapacitation) on a lung or abdominal hit, the M67 has a greater chance of merely wounding the target. The 5.56x45mm NATO has shown that, in some cases, it will create wounds that are out of proportion with its actual caliber due to fragmentation. However, the 5.56x45mm M855 will only reliably fragment in close ranges inside 40-50 meters when fired from a 14.5" M4 barrel, as velocity drops below the fragmentation threshold of 2700 fps past that distance. M16's extend fragmentation distance for the M855 to approximately 140-150 meters before loss of fragmentation is encountered. Without fragmentation, it is important to note, the 5.56x45mm M855 NATO round creates wounds that are ballistically identical to a .22LR.[citation needed]

Many contemporary Russian-made 7.62x39 cartridges, such as those sold under the Wolf, Golden Tiger, or Brown Bear label, feature a modified M67 type bullet with an airspace formed in the nose or similar ballistic-enhancing tip design (i.e. open tip or hollow point) which are hoped to induce fragmentation and/or enhance tumbling tendencies (i.e. reduce the 'neck' length of the wound channel).

8M3 Hollow Point Bullet

One of the most notable advancements in 7.62x39mm bullet design has been the 8M3 Hollow Point bullet designed and manufactured at the Ulyanovsky, Russia ammunition plant and sold under the Wolf Military Classic brand name. The 8M3 Hollow Point design uses a thinner jacket and a different airspace design in the nose, behind a hollow point tip. It has been shown to be the only current 7.62x39mm round that will reliably fragment inside of human tissue. It has greatly enhanced wounding capabilities and is not comparable to any previous 7.62x39mm bullet design; it represents a substantial improvement in terminal performance.

Stealing images
Sir, please reference this edit comment, "I am a law student; no copy vio extant, got it? I didn't steal anything. Facts & figures in my own words." The picture you stole from www.armytimes.com, a private enterprise, and placed on Wikipedia Commons violated the copyrights of that company. Lying about it after the fact and trying to put yourself up as an expert does not help your case either. Believe it or not, I might agree with your points, I'd just rather not break any laws or Wikipedia policies to do it. If facts and figures are in your own words, that violates WP:OR. If they are not your own words and you didn't properly reference them, that requires a citation. You're getting worked up over your failure to follow the guidelines. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The picture was provided courtesy of the U.S. military and, therefore, is not subject to copyright law. The avenue from which I found the image was via the www.armytimes.com. The image is a published work from an original report that was originally made available to the public in 1990. The picture is not the original property of Armytimes.com, as they did not create it, and they reproduced it accordingly. What did I lie about? If my intent were to deceive, would I not have falsified the information that I PROVIDED for the photograph? Would you prefer that I glean this public domain image from another public source? No sarcasm intended. Armytimes.com holds NO RIGHTS over this image. It is solely the property of The Federal Government and, thus, a public domain item. I am not attempting to paint myself as a scholar with regard to firearms, but I do have an extremely intimate familiarity of the rifles that I have used and built. I have broken no laws, and public domain, PUBLISHED research is not in violation of Wikipedia's rules at all. Please see:

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes UNPUBLISHED facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas..." [emphasis added]

The information provided has been published as scholarly research by way of the U.S. Army (and Dr. Fackler). This makes it explicitly public domain material. I have taken the additional liberty of completely paraphrasing all of the facts (read: numbers) and information that was contained in these pieces of work AND I have cited said work. If my citations are wrong, PLEASE let me know how they need to be corrected and I will most gladly provide all the information that you need in order to comply with Wikipedia rules (I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia). I welcome this advice. I also welcome any refinements to the wording or formatting that I have used in my edits. I am fully aware that my writing 'talent' (If it could even be called that) leaves MUCH to be desired. I do stand by, however, that the public domain information is both relevant and required for a proper and thorough discussion on this topic. I am going to fully digest the Wikipedia guidelines over the next several days; will you help me comply with these guidelines as I add this useful information. I am sorry that we got off on the wrong foot. I would like to work constructively to bolster the integrity of the resource that is Wikipedia. BufordTJustice (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[BufordTJustice] 5 June 2009 1800 EST


 * I'd like to think that your apology is sincere, however you are apologizing for me 'not getting it'. The picture of wound ballistics is not the work of the Army and, thereofre, is not public record as if it would be.  That Dr. Fackler was able to provide something in 1980 that did not exist in 1980 is also baffling.  The Mk262 did not exist when your attribution says it existes.  Also, your claims to be from Florida and therefore your claim to be some sort of Expert in Stoner's Direct Impingement system is a very difficult claim for you to substantiate.  Wikipedia is a place of consensus where people agree on what is in the article.  Where they don't agree, you discuss, KINDLY, on the talk page and come to a consensus.


 * Further, I wrote this note to you in regards to the Direct Impingement photo that you stole from Army Times. You deflected by saying that you didn't steal another picture.  I agree, read up on Wikipedia guidelines and policies and come at this with a fresh start when your ban expires. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I am apologizing for the misunderstanding and for my part in it. I was wrong about the Army Times Photo. I was under the false impression that it was a publication owned by the Government and it is not. I became confused and began referring to the army times photo when I was intending to discuss the photo of the Chart of Dr. Fackler's work. The confusion is my fault and you were correct that the DI photo is a copyright violation. For the record, the chart and the majority of the facts came from the following work, written by Dr. Fackler:

"Wounding Patterns of Military Rifle Bullets." Martin L. Fackler, International Defense Review, 59-64, 1/1989.

This work was generated while Dr. Fackler was a Colonel in the US Army Medical Corps researching wound ballistics in the Division of Military Trauma Research at the Letterman Army Institute of Research, Presidio of San Francisco, California. As a work commissioned by the U.S. Army, it is public domain.

As for more recent information about the newer rounds, Dr. Fackler is alive and well and still performing pertinent research that is published in scholarly journals.

I do not need to holster my ego by making claims that I cannot back up. I do have considerable knowledge about the Direct Impingement system used in the AR series of rifles. However, this is not about what I know, but about what other experts have had published. If you desire to test my knowledge, please feel free to ask any question that you would like. I hate for this to come down to a juvenile little contest, but your initial insults beg this response.

The following website is a wealth of published data on terminal ballistics in general. I draw from this place on a regular basis.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

As for my attribution that information on the Mk262 Mod0 and Mod1 ammunition was from Dr. Fackler's earlier works is not true; I made no such assertion. I attributed most of that information to ballistic data compiled on Ammo Oracle.

"Where they don't agree, you discuss, KINDLY, on the talk page and come to a consensus." That's advice that we could both follow. Agreed.


 * First bit of advice is to be straightforard and honest. That chart is NOT from 1989 or 1999.  It is posted here: .  There is no source on that web site either, hoever. Provide a source from where YOU got it, first, and then perhaps tell us how Dr. Fackler knew about ammunition in 1989 that did not exist?  Did he have a time machine?  Did he have precognition?  Did he have a prototype cartridge?  You're posts have been distortions and untruths and you feel you can add something to the discussion with these tactics?  Try to provide REAL and VERIFIABLE references that others can track down to back-up your assertions. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

All that you need to know is there. All cites are provided.

I have obviously gotten off to a horrible start and shown my a$$. I'm going to take some time off to adjust my attitude, which has been poor. When I return, I will discuss any and all changes in advance on the talk page for the given article.