difference in wound appearance 30-06 vs. M-16?

Discussion in 'General Rifle Discussion' started by prof-milton-fireballs, Jul 27, 2010.

  1. prof-milton-fireballs

    prof-milton-fireballs New Member

    40
    0
    0
    this question relates to achieving authenticity in a work of fiction.

    I hope it is in the right place.

    If a person were shot in the head with a 30-06 would the wound look the same or different than if they were shot with a M-16?

    If no one has seen such wounds in a person, if they have seen an animal or a test material comparison, that would suffice.

    Would the hole look the same?

    I understand the M-16 is not a long-range weapon while the 30-06 is longer range.

    So, assuming a medium distance of no more than 50 yards for either gun. If 50 yards is too far for the M-16, please note that.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2010
  2. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    I am somewhat hesitant to answer such a question. We get questions like this fairly regularly from posters that appear to be posers, trolls and otherwise nefarious types looking for anti-gun information.

    The question is very difficult to answer as the bullet weight, type and construction will weigh heavily on the answer. In a very general sense, the .223/5.56 will tend to leave a small entrance wound and a large exit with a partial evacuation of the cranial contents. The .30-06 will tend to totally evacuate the contents of the cranium and split open the entire skull leaving a much gorier scene.

    50 yards is a reasonable range for the M-16/M-4. The M-16 is a very capable long range weapon as long as you consider 200-300 yards to be long range. The .30-06 is more capable at 800-1000 yards.
     

  3. JonathanGlass

    JonathanGlass New Member

    45
    0
    0
    The m-16 fires the .223 caliber round, therefore it's capable of out to 200-300 yards as stated above, maybe 400 depending on what you want to shoot. But what is stated about is pretty much spot on, a 30-06 will leave a more devastating scene than the .223/m-16.
     
  4. prof-milton-fireballs

    prof-milton-fireballs New Member

    40
    0
    0
    This looks like a good answer for my purposes.
    thanks.

    what I notice about american anti-gun people is that they love having their decisions made for them by college professors and people with titles. The world works for them if there is some committee of people in suits decides things. They do trust individuals, which works out to an absurdity because it means they do not trust themselves.
     
  5. greydog

    greydog Member

    158
    1
    18
    To a large extent, the ammunition used will have as much effect on the results as would the difference in caliber.
    In conversation recently with a veteran of the conflict in Afghanistan, I was told it was difficult to see any difference in wounds produced by the 5.56 or the 7.62. In both cases, the bullets were standard issue military Ball, of course.
    In general, I would say it would be difficult to make a definite determination from wound appearance but it would be possible to make an educated guess as to probability.
    If expanding (varmint type) bullets were used, there would be a strong possibilty that the 223 bullet would remain inside the skull while even a lightly constructed thirty caliber would be likely to exit, taking much of the cranium and contents with it.
    Based on obsevation of the results of a base-of-the-skull hit with a 223 on a coyote at close range, some of the less pleasant results include ejection of the eyes from the sockets and bleeding from the ears. This with a fifty grain hollow point bullet. There was no exit wound. A similar hit with a 200 grain soft point from a 300 magnum resulted in an exit wound of slightly less than golf ball size. This shows the difference as a result of bullet construction as much as caliber. It is likely that the 223 bullet actually imparted more energy to the target than did the 300 since the total of the energy was imparted to the coyote with the 223 while the 300 only gave up the amount of energy required to penetrate the coyote's head plus whatever velocity was lost in passage. The more heavily constructed 30 caliber bullet just didn't meet enough resistance to cause it to "blow up" like the 223 bullet.
    Had the 300 been firing a 125 grain bullet intended for varmint shooting, the results would have undoubtedly been much different.
    A coconut (though a bit small) is not a bad reactive target to use for testing purposes if you want to acquire first hand knowledge.
    Generally speaking, even knowledgeable shooters and hunters will allow some literary license if the work is entertaining enough! GD
     
  6. james_black

    james_black New Member

    346
    0
    0
    Yes sir. :D
     
  7. prof-milton-fireballs

    prof-milton-fireballs New Member

    40
    0
    0
    I have to completely re-do this post because I made some typos that made it seem like I meant the reverse of what I really did. The redone version is below.

     
  8. Josey Wales '94

    Josey Wales '94 New Member

    172
    0
    0
    Wow............
     
  9. Angry_bald_guy

    Angry_bald_guy Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    1,687
    0
    0
    Following along these same lines and piggybacking, what would a .308 Winchester be like in comparison to a .30-06?
     
  10. IGETEVEN

    IGETEVEN New Member

    8,358
    4
    0
    Very same results. It depends on how close you are to target. The closer you are the more tissue and bone disintegration damage.

    Lets just say one will have a problem with their hat fitting correctly.

    It is a high velocity bullet and it will take you down. The preferred choice round of most military snipers and SWAT.
     
  11. Angry_bald_guy

    Angry_bald_guy Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    1,687
    0
    0
    So you're saying .308 and .30-06 would look almost the same in aftermath?
     
  12. gadrooning

    gadrooning New Member

    327
    0
    0
    My red flags are flapping in the wind. The question is legit, but the way the question is asked is a little disturbing.
     
  13. greydog

    greydog Member

    158
    1
    18
    Indeed, I can think of no good way for such a question to be asked. If the goal is truly to attempt to achieve accuracy for a fictional work, the internet is a good place to ask since most answers will also be fictional!
    As a relatively knowledgable gun guy, I'll admit to finding firearms related errors in a story mildly off-putting. I try to get past them though and remember that I am, after all, reading fiction.
    In most cases, unless the writer has solid first hand knowledge, he is best off to keep things as simple as possible and don't try to get too cute. I would never try to write a story in which flying a plane figured heavily because I have no firsthand knowledge. If I had to put a plane in there for some reason, I would try to avoid saying too much so as to avoid saying something too stupid!
    Terminal ballistics are a complex subject and the use of complex subject material as a major prop can afford an opportunity to be clever or foolish. I feel, if the storyline must be supported by such a reference, the reference should truly be accurate. If the storyline can stand without the reference, perhaps it should do so. GD
     
  14. Angry_bald_guy

    Angry_bald_guy Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    1,687
    0
    0
    Chalk it up to morbid curiosity on my part. Asking here is more socially acceptable than grabbing one of each weapon and "experimenting."