Minie Ball vs FMJ

[huntdaw]

I thought this was an interesting article comparing the wound causing capability of the minie ball and the full metal jacket round of the Spanish American War.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_200904/ai_n31964160/

[Abrams]

Interesting read, thanks.

They only did "soft tissue" impacts for the comparison. I would have been very interested to see the difference when a bone was struck.

I think the slower velocity on the minie ball and the more dramatic mushrooming of a full lead projectile would be even more damaging than the higher speed, and copper jacketed bullet. The higher speed bullet might tend to puncture and pass through the bone with less splintering, whereas the lead ball might be more apt to crush the bone, turning the bone itself into 'shrapnel' making a nastier wound.

As mentioned in the article, improvements in medical treatment might speak for much of the difference in the two wars in death or amputation, but the fact that the difference in the rounds changed the nature of the wound would have likely accounted for much of the difference also.

[Curt Schmidt]

Hallo!

True, up to a point...

IMHO, the ballistic shock and hydrostatic shock tissue damage from a slow moving mushroomed Minie was one thing.
But, the same from an intact or tumbling jacketed spitz or boat-tail bullet because a matter of physics and the trade-off between decreasing mass and increasing velocity in the

Force equals mass times velocity squared. (F=MV2)

Or the ability to but more than one jacketed high velocity bullet on target at a time. For example which does more destruction to the head, and at what range... one .58 Minie or say three .223 (5.56) FMJ's.

Or for that matter, changes in thinking as to whether one wants to blow a head off with one orund or saw it off with multiple rounds. (Resurrecting some of the old arguments over the Army's conversion from the .30 M14 to the 5.56 M16.)

And last, but not least, the difference between the state of the art in battlefield care and post battle surgery where during the CW a bullet strike to the torso could be fatal simply because of the lack of surgical science to
operate and tie off bleeders, remove all of the bullet, clothing fibers, dirt and debris, etc., etc., and then avoid shock and/or septis.

Or even such considerations as the difference between a KIA taking on eman out of action versus a WIA that requires the attention and services of several men.

Interesting still, but complicated over time, theory, and practice.

Curt

[Mudslinger]

And last, but not least, the difference between the state of the art in battlefield care and post battle surgery where during the CW a bullet strike to the torso could be fatal simply because of the lack of surgical science to
operate and tie off bleeders, remove all of the bullet, clothing fibers, dirt and debris, etc., etc., and then avoid shock and/or septis.

Or even such considerations as the difference between a KIA taking on eman out of action versus a WIA that requires the attention and services of several men.

Interesting still, but complicated over time, theory, and practice.

Curt


Sepsis Curt! Sepsis!!! Ahhh.....the evolution of field "TRIAGE". I need to brush up on that aspect during the war. Good article.