Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
.jpg "Research Chemical Sciences")
.png "Research Chemical Sciences")
Fighting a mountain lion
- Thread starter tbuz67
- Start date
Wazzzzzzzup89
New member
I think he had fired a few shots a few hours before and he had emtyed all but one shot and forgot to reload... Yes the lady is very religous and says it was a miracle. I personlly wouldnt wanna be in the situation of course 
Guvna
New member
Kane Fan said:
http://web4.integraonline.com/~bbroadside/Ballistic_Info.html
.223 has THREE times the power of a .45
Guvna
New member
Kane Fan said:
Wrong again. Bleeding isnt even a factor here. 95% of the bear's body wont even be penetrated by a .45. It will stop in adipose tissue. Nor will a .45 penetrate a grizzly skull.
a 5.56 will do both.
the reason people talk about a 5.56 "lack of stopping power" is because it tends to poke a small hole in the target, and travel all the way through, without tumbling. This is only at lower velocities, long distances, or with a short barrell, however. An m-16 with a proper length barrell with cause far more damage that any .45.
You dont hear about people complaining about .45s stopping power because it is a HANDGUN. it will be used at 25 yards tops, and it has great stopping power....for a HANDGUN. It couldnt stand next to ANY rifle cailber.
Also, you cant compare HUMAN stats at 7 yards (decent stopping power wiht .45) and human stats of a 5.56 (not very good stopping power at 200+ yards) to a bear. A bear's fat layer is a thick as an average human being. You shoot a human with a .45, he is torn up, and the bullet is usually still inside of him. YOu shoot a bear with a .45, it is still in his adipose layer. You shoot a human with a .223, at more than 200 yards, with a shorter barrel, it will poke a hole in him, but have alomose all of its energy left. You shoot a bear with a .223, it pokes through the fat layer, and deposits all of its engery into the bear-and stops inside him somewhere.
I cant believe I went into this. Please read a little before you talk.
Last edited:
Guvna
New member
sorerotators said:
Like the guy above, read before you speak.
http://www.cougarinfo.com/attacks2.htm
Guvna said:http://web4.integraonline.com/~bbroadside/Ballistic_Info.html
.223 has THREE times the power of a .45
stopping power is different from velocity
it's quite simple really
has the .223 round been something of a let down to soldiers before? yes
now how many complaints has anyone heard of about a .45?
I personally know of none
Guvna said:
it occurs to me you are an asshole
do something about that attitude
it'll help you in life
now to highlight your ignorance
there are largegame hunters that use pistols
very few people hunt lions or other large animals with a .22 or .223
now keep in mind I'm not saying I WANT to go after a bear with a .45 or a .223
I'd just as soon leave the bear the hell alone
now if you can cut down on the attitude and act like a grown up
I'll be glad to continue the conversation and we can go example for example
on the other hand if you want to hurl insults and be condesending
I'll go that road with you to but I'm giving you fair warning, I'm a hell of a lot better at it
ziggyziggy
New member
OK, lets get something straight here. Real world results are much different than the size of a hole on a paper target. The 5.56 mm round has excellent ballistic properties for what is was designed for. That is, to engage a target out to roughly 400 meters, in a rifle with a barrel length of 14.5 inches or greater. Below a 14.5 inch barrel, the round will lose the necessary velocity to effectively engage a target out to the range that the round was designed for. However, at closer range, it will still have over three times the energy of a .45 ACP round.
However, more important than the energy delivered by the round, is what happens to the round when it enters the target....
A standard FMJ handgun round will enter the body, and barring striking a bone, it will continue into the target until all of its energy is depleted. This will cause one wound channel. Any soft tissue, blood vessel or organ damage will start the process of internal bleeding. Handgun rounds are inherently stable rounds in both low drag, low viscosity and high drag, high viscosity environments, and generally do not spall (tumble) within the body, as they simply lack the velocity and inherent instability in more viscous environments (aka: in the body) to do so.
A 5.56 mm round is an inherently stable round in low drag, low voscosity environments (aka: air), but is inherently unstable in high drag, high viscosity environments. What this means is that once the round has entered the body, it's inherent instability will cause it to spall, or tumble, once it has entered the body and penetrated a number of centimeters into soft tissue. That, coupled with its extreme velocity, causes a massive shockwave within the body, damaging blood vessels, soft tissue, and organs FAR outside the diameter of the initial wound channel.
As I said before, I have PERSONALLY seen the effects of both handgun rounds and rifle rounds on human beings. Both in combat situations, as well as in post mortem autopsys. Rifle rounds, in almost 100% of situations, cause massive internal injuries, far in excess of what a handgun will cause, simply because of the facts outlined in the above two paragraphs.
Extrapolating these results to an animal with the bone density and white adipose tissue depth of a bear, means that a handgun round will most certainly fail to kill a bear, as it will fail to penetrate these substances, barring extraordinary circumstances.
If you want to talk about terminal ballistic properties of various rounds, I would be more than happy to indulge. However, as I said before, barring extraordinary circumstances, shooting a bear with a handgun will just piss it off.
Can it be done? Yes. Is it likely? Hell no!
However, more important than the energy delivered by the round, is what happens to the round when it enters the target....
A standard FMJ handgun round will enter the body, and barring striking a bone, it will continue into the target until all of its energy is depleted. This will cause one wound channel. Any soft tissue, blood vessel or organ damage will start the process of internal bleeding. Handgun rounds are inherently stable rounds in both low drag, low viscosity and high drag, high viscosity environments, and generally do not spall (tumble) within the body, as they simply lack the velocity and inherent instability in more viscous environments (aka: in the body) to do so.
A 5.56 mm round is an inherently stable round in low drag, low voscosity environments (aka: air), but is inherently unstable in high drag, high viscosity environments. What this means is that once the round has entered the body, it's inherent instability will cause it to spall, or tumble, once it has entered the body and penetrated a number of centimeters into soft tissue. That, coupled with its extreme velocity, causes a massive shockwave within the body, damaging blood vessels, soft tissue, and organs FAR outside the diameter of the initial wound channel.
As I said before, I have PERSONALLY seen the effects of both handgun rounds and rifle rounds on human beings. Both in combat situations, as well as in post mortem autopsys. Rifle rounds, in almost 100% of situations, cause massive internal injuries, far in excess of what a handgun will cause, simply because of the facts outlined in the above two paragraphs.
Extrapolating these results to an animal with the bone density and white adipose tissue depth of a bear, means that a handgun round will most certainly fail to kill a bear, as it will fail to penetrate these substances, barring extraordinary circumstances.
If you want to talk about terminal ballistic properties of various rounds, I would be more than happy to indulge. However, as I said before, barring extraordinary circumstances, shooting a bear with a handgun will just piss it off.
Can it be done? Yes. Is it likely? Hell no!
Guvna
New member
ziggyziggy said:OK, lets get something straight here. Real world results are much different than the size of a hole on a paper target. The 5.56 mm round has excellent ballistic properties for what is was designed for. That is, to engage a target out to roughly 400 meters, in a rifle with a barrel length of 14.5 inches or greater. Below a 14.5 inch barrel, the round will lose the necessary velocity to effectively engage a target out to the range that the round was designed for. However, at closer range, it will still have over three times the energy of a .45 ACP round.
However, more important than the energy delivered by the round, is what happens to the round when it enters the target....
A standard FMJ handgun round will enter the body, and barring striking a bone, it will continue into the target until all of its energy is depleted. This will cause one wound channel. Any soft tissue, blood vessel or organ damage will start the process of internal bleeding. Handgun rounds are inherently stable rounds in both low drag, low viscosity and high drag, high viscosity environments, and generally do not spall (tumble) within the body, as they simply lack the velocity and inherent instability in more viscous environments (aka: in the body) to do so.
A 5.56 mm round is an inherently stable round in low drag, low voscosity environments (aka: air), but is inherently unstable in high drag, high viscosity environments. What this means is that once the round has entered the body, it's inherent instability will cause it to spall, or tumble, once it has entered the body and penetrated a number of centimeters into soft tissue. That, coupled with its extreme velocity, causes a massive shockwave within the body, damaging blood vessels, soft tissue, and organs FAR outside the diameter of the initial wound channel.
As I said before, I have PERSONALLY seen the effects of both handgun rounds and rifle rounds on human beings. Both in combat situations, as well as in post mortem autopsys. Rifle rounds, in almost 100% of situations, cause massive internal injuries, far in excess of what a handgun will cause, simply because of the facts outlined in the above two paragraphs.
Extrapolating these results to an animal with the bone density and white adipose tissue depth of a bear, means that a handgun round will most certainly fail to kill a bear, as it will fail to penetrate these substances, barring extraordinary circumstances.
If you want to talk about terminal ballistic properties of various rounds, I would be more than happy to indulge. However, as I said before, barring extraordinary circumstances, shooting a bear with a handgun will just piss it off.
Can it be done? Yes. Is it likely? Hell no!
Similar threads
