Thank you Mr. Shapiro for being generous with your compliments. Much appreciated. I (along with many others), tend to agree with your findings about the 5.56...
Hello Mr. Shapiro. A sequel to this video was recently produced. I hope you will find it to be beneficial. Here is the link to part 2. ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.htmlsi=Ba58ZpQvf9dRf6oP Looking forward to your thoughts. Thanks. 👍😎
Our USMC boot camp drill instructor told us that 5.56 had the advantage of causing more interal organ damage to the enemy because the round was more unstable after impact, causing the bullet to tumble and scatter. By comparison, he taught us that the 7.62 was more powerful but had a piercing effect as opposed to the disintegrating effect like the 5.56. The instructor shot a tree trunk in front of us with a 7.62 rifle and the bullet went through the trunk, creating a clean hole all the way to the other side. This video confirms what I learned in boot camp. Thank you.
Which means be careful what size tree you use for cover. The big issue with the 762 is you lose your sight picture when you fire. It takes a second or two to acquire. With the 556 there’s virtually no recoil and you can keep piling them in one after the other on semi automatic, making it much more accurate for combat use. The thing it lacks is penetrating walls. The other thing that people forget unless they’ve humped the bush is the weight of that stuff. Lead is heavy and the difference between 308 and 556 is major. The big surprise for me was the shock of that 77, grain 556 round. That’s incredible that range in particular. I wonder how the drop profile compares to your 68 and 55😢 grain standard ball rounds.
The 77 grain OTM has MASSIVE energy transfer. The jacket is super thin, so it shatters the front half, massive energy dump. The shank will sometimes continue on.
That demo showed me that a faster round goes in and out too quickly for the hydroshock to form to its fullest. While that 77 grain did allow it to form to its fullest, causing more destruction.
Bullet design is everything. 5.56 was a hollow point and usually with enough velocity open up (mushroom) and more damage. 7.51 and 308 were ball rounds and poke a simple hole.
@@vuv9520only one was ball. One was an open tip match. Technically a hollow point since the tip was followed out. Mostly designed for accuracy, but so is the 77 gr 556. That’s an otm too so I think the just opening really caused a lot of pressure relief for the otm 308 and that’s y it didn’t look as good.
@adam-nv9zo...Just wanted to send a message to let you know that part 2 in this series was recently produced. Here is a link to the sequel. ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html Hope you will find it to be on par with or better than the original. 😉👍
Awesome video! not weighed down with crappy music or stupid shots of gun nuts wearing cringy wrap around sunglasses standing in front of their Ford 150s. Precise, educational, and to the point. Subscribed, thank you!
Beyond the information in the video, which was very good, the frame by frame analysis at the end was exceptionally well done. This is the first video I have seen that has gone into that much detail. Full credit for doing a good job with this video.
Thank you for your kind words. Much appreciated. Wanted to respond sooner but was working on producing a sequel to this vid. Here is the link to part 2. ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html Hope you will find it to be as good or better than the original. 👍😎
Would be interesting to see how the 168 gr would have faired if the cap of the jug would have stayed on like the other two, It looks like it made a good relief valve.
Agreed, would like to see another test. Is it possible that the initial pressure upon impact is significant enough that the cap would come off no matter what?
The cap didn’t fail. The 168 gr projectile is moving much slower, so it gave the cap time to “react”. The faster moving projectiles did not give the cap time to react and blew the wall instead of the cap. Velocity out ways mass every time. The nazi’s were a prime example of mass, had a cannon bigger than a locomotive, sure it could reek havoc., But Tesla knew if you fired a grain of sand at a 100,000 fps that the devastation would be immense. “Particle beam accelerator “
Okay...I'll admit, I was surprised by the results! The 5.56 was far more impressive than I was expecting. It seems to be the velocity greatly increases the effect...at least on water jugs. Next, I'd like to see cinder blocks used as targets, I'd suspect the bigger yet slower bullets might do better. But I don't know; therefore thank you for this video, I appreciate seeing those slow motion pics. Very interesting.
Its all about the bullet. Someone who is an subject matter expert on all things 'guns and ammo', showed me how to make a 9mm round into a respectful self defense round. Pick the right gun, ammo for the task at hand. For self defense, I try to maximize the hydraulic shock of the bullet. For bear defense, I only go out with hard cast bullets for penetration (I cast my own, 10mm, 357mag)
The 16" barrel handicapped the 308 compared to an 18" barrel for the 5.56. The 308 really gains velocity with the longer barrel, out to about 22" or so.
Thank you Mr. Claus for taking the time to watch the video and for sharing some intelligent food for thought. In fact, both calibers were somewhat handicapped by barrel length. They both would have benefited from longer length barrels (especially if both were test fired from a bolt action.) At a very close distance like 50 or 100 yards this would have been a greater factor to consider, but at a distance of 300 yards, with both rounds having a chance to lose a lot of velocity I would have thought that the .308 could have easily overcome the difference in barrel length.
Greeting Mr. Claus. Just wanted to send you a friendly message to let you know that a sequel to this video has been produced and that your ideas were carefully considered when making part 2 in this series. Here is the link to part 2. ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html Hope you will find it to be useful. Looking forward to your reply in the comments section of the new video. Thanks. 😎
Just wanted to send you a message to let you know that a sequel to this vid has been produced. Here is a link to it. ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html Hope you will like it as much as the original. 🙂👍
That was simply amazing and not what I was expecting. You’ve done a great job in showing how effective the Mk262 round is. It helps explain why it was such a coveted round in the Middle East war.
@Dennisthemenace40. Just wanted to send a message to let you know that part 2 in this video series was recently produced. Here is a link to the sequel. ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html Hope you will find it to be on par with the first one. 😎👍
Technically, it's not a MK262 as that is only produced by Black Hills. That said, this sig version of the 262 seemed to have better numbers than I get from my lot of BH MK263, which clocks in at 2,779fps from my 18" white oak. I'm very impressed with this Sig version and now have to try it. I reload a 77gr using IMR8208xbr which I have gotten up to 2,836 in 10 shot avg as opposed to the BH MK262 at 2,779. Either way, this is ine of the most impressive and surprising test I have seen, and goes to show that numbers can be deceiving.
Thank you for taking the time to watch the video and for providing some solid food for thought. Wanted to respond sooner but was busy producing the sequel to this vid. Here is the link to it. ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html Hope you will find it to be on par with or better than the original. 🙂👍
@stephenbrown9068. That is a very true statement. Wanted to respond sooner. Was tied up with making the sequel to this vid. Her is the link to it. ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html Hope you will find it to be beneficial. 👍
It Looks Like The Old 5.56 Is Definitely A Highly Effective Round Out To 300 Yards! So Much For All Of The Hate It Receives From Some Folks! Using The Right Type Of Ammo Truly Makes A Difference In Effectiveness! ✌️🇺🇸✌️
Excellent video with a very well done testing protocol. The results belie what the figures on paper would suggest. I have a newfound respect for the 77gr 5.56. While others have pointed out that soft points in the other two calibers might have produced different results, there’s no denying the explosive power of the 5.56 at 300 yards. Thank you for your excellent testing work.
@Jeffwaltonbooks894. Thank you for your encouraging words. Much appreciated. Wanted to reply sooner but have been working on the sequel to this video which was recently completed. Here is a link to part 2. ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html Hope you will find the sequel to be on par with or better than the original. Thanks 👍
That was pretty amazing to see. Definitely, not what I was expecting. That 147 grain and the 223 were exceptional rounds! I was really surprised at how explosive the .223 was at that distance. Thanks for the video! Hope to see more of them!
Just wanted to send a message to let you know that the sequel to this vid has been produced. Here is the link to it. ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html Hope you will find it to be beneficial. 🙂👍
Just wanted to send a message to let you know that a sequel to this vid has been produced. Here is a link to it. ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html Hope that you will find it to be or par with or better than the original. 🙂
That was really cool. I’d love to see other .223 and 5.56 rounds. Namely 62 and 55 grain…I suppose I could get off my lazy butt and do it myself. But your camera work and narration is excellent. Thanks! Lol…edit…just subbed and checked out your channel…and there’s the videos! On my way to see what happens! NICE
I'm theorizing that the 5.56 77 gr tumbled and broke up, expending all striking force in the jug. The heavier 168gr / 147 gr bullets, with higher striking force, remained more stable and punched through, only expending partial striking force in the jug. Trying the same test again with soft point hunting ammo in all calibers would allow the heavier .308 bullets to expend most bullet striking force in the jug. In testing .31 and .36 caliber cap and ball revolvers, using original 1850's era pointed conical bullets moving at ~900 fps, the little .31 80 grain conical actually had more explosive damage on the 1st 1 gallon water jug than the .36 125 grain conical even though the 125 grain .36 actually has about 60% greater striking force. The reason was because the .31 cal 80 grain conical tumbled on impact, while the .36 125 gr conical punched straight thru!
@@section8usmc53 1:8 is actually the preferred twist rate for shooting 77gr ammo. The reason 1:7 exists is to be able to stabilize tracers from my understanding. Looking at a tracer outside of the case it is considerably longer than 77gr otm
For years there has been a debate about using 22 caliber bullets to hunt deer and even larger game, this test goes to show the .224 bullet at high velocity creates a massive pressure wave and the damage it can inflict is enormous. Ron Spomer talked about a market hunter in Alaska named Frank Glaser, he worked for the Army and road building crews to keep them supplied with meat, his cartridge of choice the 220 Swift with 48 gr bullets. If you do not know the the 220 Swift is fastest commercially produced cartridge ever with a velocity of 4,665 fps(Wikipedia). Frank Glaser trapped/ hunted wolves, moose, Caribou, and even several grizzly bears with the 220 Swift, he stated moose and caribou just dropped when shot in the lungs with the 220 Swift. There was another trapper/hunter in Alberta Canada named Bella Twin in 1953 she killed a world record grizzly bear with a single shot 22LR rifle to the side of the head. She made sure the bear was dead with several follow up shots to the brain. When you consider with well built bullets like the Barnes TTSX and especially the 77 gr LRX have very high BC numbers, are ultra efficient in flight, penetrate deep, have less drift and drop than even the much lauded 6.5 crowd and with the ultra high velocities create damage patterns mimicking much larger cartridges it is understandable why the 22 caliber can be an lethal and ethical choice for harvesting game when the hunter does their job accurately placing the shot.
It’s been said time and time again that a .22 can kill almost any animal IF the shot is placed correctly, .223 is no different but why use the bare minimum to hunt? .223 is good for lightskin deer size game within 100-150yds but as far as elk and moose? There are far better choices for game of that size, let alone brown bears.
The little 5.56 may have had less kinetic energy at 300 yards, but it was able to impart a higher percentage of what it had into the jug than what the two larger rounds could do. Had there been two jugs in each shot, the 5.56 likely wouldn't have done as much damage to the second, even though the first would've been eviscerated.
Unfortunately the energy of the 7.62 passed on through. Maybe a lighter weight bullet so that it could break up and all energy could transfer to the jug. Amazing what the 77 grain did though.
What we're seeing here is penetration capacity. What would be the outcome if there had been a second jug set up behind each of the three tested here? How much damage would have been done to the second target? What would happen if the jugs were set up at 500 yards instead of three. Air is fluid and has significant resistance when objects are moving as fast as bullets. People don't think about a bullet flight as penetration of Air. But that is essentially what happens.
Thank you Pumpkoi for your ideas and enthusiasm on the v-max. You will be pleased to hear that the v-max version(s) are already filmed and are being edited now...
Wait, what?? For reals you did an amazing job in this video. Thanx a bunch for making it and posting it. My mind is still trying to catch up on how destructive that little bullet is!!!!!
Just wanted to send a message to let you know that a sequel to this vid has been produced. Here is a link to it. ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html Hope you will find it to be on par with the original (if not better.) 🙂👍
It certainly shows what damage that a hollow point heavy for caliber bullet will do in the 223. I am more amazed at with 147 grain ball round did as compared to the two hollow-point rounds. For me it's 308 all day, and that really opened my eyes as to what the ball round did compared to hollow points. I have a lot more confidence in my 308 with 147 grain ball ammo. Great video
Keep in mind, Open Tip Match (OTP) rounds do not function like a traditional hollow point. The open tip is to help with the flight of the round, but doesn't cause expansion. You need a hunting projectile usually for expansion in rifle rounds. Using a soft tip or one of the polymer tip hunting rounds would have had a more energy transfer into the jug and a bigger show. The first round just zipped through the jug, based on that exit hole.
@@jasonk.3182 Now try that experiment with a 243 Winchester and a varmint round. A 55gr bullet out of a 243 is pushing 4000 fps. Hit a water jug with a 243 using a 55 gr Sierra Blitz King and you time the jug for hang time, lol....
@Netravler1, Thank you for taking the time to watch the video and for your enthusiasm. Wanted to respond sooner but was working on the sequel to this vid. Here is the link to it. ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html Hope you will find it to be on par with or better than the original.🙂👍
From my personal experience of shooting various water jugs with different calibers is that the bullet type makes a huge difference, had the 7.62/51 - 308 cartridges been soft points, or the like, you'd have seen much more damage. The hollow point used here is a target orientated round, not an expanding hollow point. Having said that the smaller 223 round di far more than expected, but ultimately it's about transferring the energy from the bullet to the target and the 7.62/308 rounds powered through, where as the 223 dumped more energy into the water and jug, despite being the less powerful round.
Thanks for watching the video and for sharing your ideas. Much appreciated. Wanted to respond sooner but have been busy producing the sequel to this vid. Here is the link to it. ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html I do plan on different types of ammo for each like you suggested. stay tuned. 👍
I love comparisons like this! I honestly thot the 7.62 would have the most damage with its speed and mass. Hopefully one day you'll get sponsored and able to use the body ballistic gel.
If you're shooting a jug of water, there's nothing better than a 5.56. It fragments so easily that it makes for a fun show. Still has a lot less energy than a .308 has though. They both have their uses.
After past conversation I've had and being in support of the 556, I am extremely impressed. I knew the 556 was excellent but not to this extreme. Blown away just doesn't seem to cover it. Thanks for demonstration
Similar test were done in the 1960's during the military testing of the 5.56 round compared to the standard 7.62x51 M14 round. The evolution of the testing resulted in our military adopting the 5.56 and Mr. Stoner's M16 rifle over the standard M14 for service in Vietnam. Our military still uses some M14's in special applications & the 7.62x51 is still in use by our military in the " squad automatic rifles" and it is still in service all over the world as the 7.62NATO round.
The cap coming off of the first test completely changed the outcome. We cannot assume that each water bottle is manufactured very precisely as well so each bottle may have different flaws the structure. So single shot tests are not enough of it comparison statistically to make completely valid conclusions.. It is extremely interesting though and I thank you for doing this very much! Thanks for being so thorough about the projectiles in the velocities and energies the different distances. That was super helpful!!!
Great job showing at distance difference between these two calibers. Not sure I was expecting that for an outcome, but it gives me mad respect for the 556. Surprisingly, this is exactly the kind of experiment I was hoping to see done. Picked up some 7.62x51 service grade M118LR recently so I can do a 200-yard sighting on my SFAR. Did well on ball ammo at 100 yards..working on putting out a short video in a couple days.
Thank you for your kind words. Much appreciated. The results were more impressive in person, especially when being able to see the hits through the scope. The camera can only do so much to convey what really happened…
Also, have you upgraded the trigger yet in your sfar to help with down range accuracy…. Without the benefit of a better trigger (on each rifle) I would not have been able to make those shots at 300…
@@outdooradventures1696 Time will tell after I shoot at distance. The trigger is light enough that it certainly makes it easier for accuracy, which is usually my biggest handicap, considering I have a muscle disorder. I fear that my biggest setback was getting a 1x6 scope. Should have went for more magnification. Keep up with the videos if you enjoy doing so. You did well, a lot of work and planning. I'll have to check out your other ones.
Nicely done. Good representation on hydrostatic shock. That energy dump from the 147 and especially the 77 @300yd is definitely impressive. Highly doubt all these folks running around with *truck guns* 10.5 and shorter will ever see results remotely close to the 18in used in this test. It's still extremely impressive. Thank you
*_TOP-TIER_* video production value . . . maybe in addition to the target sticker you could mark the plastic water jugs with some reference lines or marks with a black felt pen marker to help identify the front . . . the reference lines/marks would help to positively identify the projectile entrance hole *_post-mortem_* if the target sticker comes completely off and the water jug ends up *_totally_* shredded . . . I have a feeling securing the cap with duct tape would result in some pretty *_spectacular_* impacts . . . compliments again on how outstanding well this video was put together . . . you set a benchmark by which other range test videos should be measured . . . 👍🏼
Thank you miraclemax08 for taking the time to watch the video, provide intelligent food for thought, and for being far too generous with your compliments. Much appreciated.
Greetings Miraclemax08. Just wanted to send you a message to let you know that a sequel to this vid has been produced. Here is the link to it. ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html Hope you will find it to be on par with if not better than the original. 🙂👍
@@outdooradventures1696 just watched the follow-up video and it is as equally well produced as the first . . . the *_only_* way the follow-up video can be said to be *_better_* than the original is to point out how well *_commenter_* concerns were addressed . . . another outstanding job on the follow-up video
Thanks for your compliments. Much appreciated. Wanted to respond sooner but was putting the finishing touches on the sequel to this vid. Here is a link to it. ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html I hope you will find it on par with or better than the original. BTW the first time I ever shot a .308 was from a bolt action savage years ago. Still remember how great that felt. 🙂👍
Thanks for your effort$ (& time) to produce this very nice info-clip and yes, I'll get some 5.56 heavier 77 grain hunting rounds since I'll take AR-15's if we get the hunting permits for this year - take care!
If the cap stayed on for the .308 it would have been the same results as the 7.62x51. If you had left the cap off the results would be the holes left behind.
On the first shot, the cap popped off. On the other two, the cap stayed in place, allowing for more internal pressure. I would like the see a "re-shoot" of the first round, to see if the cap stays on, and if the explosion would indeed be similar.
@vincentrobinette1507 Thanks for taking the time to watch the video and to share your ideas. Wanted to reply sooner but was making a sequel to this vid that addressed the points you raised. Here is a link to it. ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html Hope you will find it to be beneficial. 🙂👍
77gr at 2913 is hard to believe. As one who reloads the 77 OTM and also uses an 18” barrel, I know there is not enough case capacity to achieve this velocity . Their own website shows 2750 and we all know they 24” barrels for testing.
Thank you Mr yeates26 for taking the time to watch the video and to offer some intelligent food for thought. Much appreciated. Please keep in mind that this video was published on 12/05/2022 and the chronographing was done a few days prior. Here is a link to a video that was posted on 4/25/2022 (nearly 8 months earlier) in which the readings were even faster than 2913 fps. I can vouch for the fact that different boxes of ammo were used in each speed test and the weather conditions were different 8 months earlier. ua-cam.com/video/7d3EBUEIbHs/v-deo.html In each video other thinking people just like you have commented on the speed of the 77 grain bullet but yet nobody has disputed the readings of the other bullets being tested on either date. That being said, it begs the question, "why would the chronograph only give a bad reading on the exact same bullet 8 months apart?" If however, the reading was off and we use the reading that is on the back of the box of 2750 fps at muzzle, that would mean that the impact velocity would be about 2050 fps at 300 yards rather than 2188 fps. 2050 fps of speed at 300 yards is barely faster than either the .308 or 7.62 x 51 rounds being tested and would not really justify how well the 5.56 performed in comparison... What may account for the extra speed is that the rounds were tested at 3400 feet above sea level. Looking forward to your ideas on this... Thanks.
@@outdooradventures1696 all I’m saying is facts are facts. Even the manufacturer doesn’t claim this speed. Bottom line, case capacity does not allow for 77gr projectiles to reach stated 2913+ fps. If you’re reloading, you can get closer. But, factory loaded, SAAMI spec 77gr OTM will not achieve said velocity.
@@yeates26 All I can get out of a 16" barrel with 62 grain projectiles is 2860. An 18" barrel might push it to 2900, but it's just not happening with a 77 grain pill.
If you could hit it, I think it would bust a small hole through one side and spring a leak. Maybe something heavy and fast like velocitor would split it a little, but I dunno. It would not penetrate the back side. Curious too though!
Would like to see 180 gr. Core lokt. I always have to the best expansion with the Cor lokt. 2700 FT. Pounds. Very good video. Building my first Wylde. Can't wait to get some rounds through after this video.
As for the effects of the 5.56 hit, remember that kinetic energy delivered equals the square root of mass times velocity squared. Don’t underestimate the 5.56 due to the smaller bullet weight. It’s moving very fast, and the velocity factor is squared as compared to the mass of the bullet.
High velocity and bullet fragmentation generate a more explosive wound channel or water displacement with the smaller caliber but when it comes to game animals where bone and flesh absorb the impact of the bullet everything changes. Lack of penitration and grenaiding projectiles can cause superficial wounding. A bonded bullet like Bond Strike or Speer Impact will hold together giving a passthrough while still giving a large energy dump. Water is an ok medium as long as you use wood to simulate bone for a realistic test.
Yes, bonded makes a difference. I have hunted whitetail deer for decades but in the last 10 years or so, I have only hunted with a .223 in a 26” barrel bolt action instead of my usual .270. I have always had a pass through with an exit hole of at least .50 caliber. I have never had a deer go more than maybe 15 yards. I usually hunt about 100 yards so never at a long range. In fact if I was going to reach out 200 or more yards I would probably go with the .270. But… my longest kill ever was at 118 yards ( according to the range finder) with the .223. It was a buck quartering at me so not an optimal shot choice but it was getting late. The 62gr bonded round (Federal LE223T3) went through the left shoulder joint, shattering the bones and continued through the heart and exited the other side. The deer rose up on his hind legs, walked a couple of steps and the fell dead. I had a friend with me in the blind witness it and when we cleaned the deer, he could not believe the round went through the joint and still at an angle (making it travel farther), exited the other side. The leg joint appeared to be no hinderance at all. At a longer range? The .223 would probably be lacking and certainly more so than a more standard deer cartridge like the .270, .308, etc. Within a little over 100 yards, the bones didn’t seem to have much to do with the effectiveness of the round. I am fairly certain that the hunting rifle barrel instead of a short 16” AR type barrel probably had a lot to do with it.
Pretty cool. Not many videos with actual tests on longer shots out there. 300 yards is rather normal range in western states and nobody impact tests out that far. Appreciate the hard work. Thanks
Thanks for your kind words. Much appreciated. Wanted to respond sooner but was working hard on producing a sequel to this vid. Here is a link to it. ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html Hope you will find it to be on par with if not better than the original. 🙂👍
VERY interesting. From what I saw here, I would opt for the .556 over the 7.62, regarding the pressure cavity that is formed. HOWEVER, the 7.62 will always be superior in sufficiently penetrating any cover to get THROUGH the target behind the cover with enough lethal energy.
Assuming there was no tampering with those Jugs, this is very shocking. I would never have thought the 5.56 would be that much more violent compared to the 308. Extremely interesting.
This was never about penetration, it was about velocity and the shock wave that was created. If this were about blasting concrete blocks, then the outcome would be much different.
The 308 needs velocity for an otm to open. An actual hunting round would have made a huge difference along with a real barrel not a 16". He even gave the 556 an 18" barrel it simply had the velocity advantage needed to dump energy in the target rather than behind the target
The .556 slowed down faster and dumped more energy into the water. The .308/.762 passed through. Also the loss of the cap on the .308 168gr caused loss of hydrostatic pressure and limited damage to the bottle.
IMHO, the 308 round was the hands down winner. But it's hard to tell with only one jug in the lineup. Plus, a 16 inch barrel is a tad short for the 308. Its not going to represent what that round is capable of. It would have been fun to see what would have happened to jugs 2, 3, and 4. Thanks for the vid.
OK, I started watching this out of boredom and was totally unimpressed the the bullet choices and target. "This guy is really an amateur" there obviously isnt any valuable information to be had by this experiment. but here I am at the end of the video totally surprised at the outcome and appreciative of the detail provided. Well done sir! You made a We'll done video that was quite worth my time. Will watch more!
@ mr Grill…yes indeed, the 77 grain bullets were indeed chronographed from the rifle used in the vid. Here is a link to a vid that shows the rifle and shows some 55, 62, & 68 grain being used on 5 gallon jugs. ua-cam.com/video/_t3fS70Z4_4/v-deo.html
The differences in terminal performance have more to do with the bullet construction than any differences in impact velocity or terminal kinetic energy. It is obvious the smaller, less energetic 5.56 imparted a much larger percentage of its kinetic energy into the water. You could play around with bullet choice and get the 7.62 to dump the same percentage of its greater kinetic energy into the water and it would be even more spectacular.
You would see as much or more damage on a. second or third jug wit the 308. With an FMJ round, one jug doesn't have enough resistance to make for a spectacular hit.
Idk if you are aware but the .308 had the best results. Kinetic energy moving through the medium of water not only lifted a 40 gallon jug but spin the container off.
Hey there! Just stumbled onto this video after picking up a Ruger SFAR myself recently (haven't had a chance to start shooting it yet... waiting for the holidays to go past). Have you noticed any difference in using .308 vs 7.62 in the SFAR? I actually asked Ruger if it was ok to fire both as i know there is a 'slight' difference in the two rounds due to the differences in the case-thickness. Their response was: The Ruger SFAR is 7.62x51 and can also use .308 factory ammunition loaded to United States industry specifications. But.. seeing as you just did a video doing exactly that (using both rounds), thoughts?
Thank you for taking the time to watch the video. Much appreciated. From what I understand from the factory (and from firsthand experience) the rifle can handle both .308 and 7.62 x 51. Here is a link to a more complete review of the Ruger SFAR that I did recently. ua-cam.com/video/Cjc5AuRFPow/v-deo.html hope it will be useful as well. 👍
That was a very impressive & precise display of results. Thank you! I found the 5.56 results more devastating than I expected.
Thank you Mr. Shapiro for being generous with your compliments. Much appreciated. I (along with many others), tend to agree with your findings about the 5.56...
Remember, that he used a hollow point for the 556
Hello Mr. Shapiro. A sequel to this video was recently produced. I hope you will find it to be beneficial. Here is the link to part 2.
ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.htmlsi=Ba58ZpQvf9dRf6oP
Looking forward to your thoughts. Thanks. 👍😎
Speed kills
@@mellovato2177all 3 were hollows
Exact opposite of what I thought would happen . Thanks for taking the time.
Our USMC boot camp drill instructor told us that 5.56 had the advantage of causing more interal organ damage to the enemy because the round was more unstable after impact, causing the bullet to tumble and scatter. By comparison, he taught us that the 7.62 was more powerful but had a piercing effect as opposed to the disintegrating effect like the 5.56.
The instructor shot a tree trunk in front of us with a 7.62 rifle and the bullet went through the trunk, creating a clean hole all the way to the other side. This video confirms what I learned in boot camp. Thank you.
Which means be careful what size tree you use for cover. The big issue with the 762 is you lose your sight picture when you fire. It takes a second or two to acquire. With the 556 there’s virtually no recoil and you can keep piling them in one after the other on semi automatic, making it much more accurate for combat use. The thing it lacks is penetrating walls. The other thing that people forget unless they’ve humped the bush is the weight of that stuff. Lead is heavy and the difference between 308 and 556 is major.
The big surprise for me was the shock of that 77, grain 556 round. That’s incredible that range in particular. I wonder how the drop profile compares to your 68 and 55😢 grain standard ball rounds.
The 5.56 ball needs speed to perform properly. It doesn't do it from a short barrel.
The 77 grain OTM has MASSIVE energy transfer. The jacket is super thin, so it shatters the front half, massive energy dump. The shank will sometimes continue on.
That demo showed me that a faster round goes in and out too quickly for the hydroshock to form to its fullest. While that 77 grain did allow it to form to its fullest, causing more destruction.
@@jamiepatterson1214 However the 77gr 5.56 is actually the faster round :)
Awesome video. 5.56 has always impressed me. Amazing what that little projectile can do.
Thank you for your compliment. Much appreciated.
Bullet design is everything. 5.56 was a hollow point and usually with enough velocity open up (mushroom) and more damage. 7.51 and 308 were ball rounds and poke a simple hole.
speed kills
@@vuv9520only one was ball. One was an open tip match. Technically a hollow point since the tip was followed out. Mostly designed for accuracy, but so is the 77 gr 556. That’s an otm too so I think the just opening really caused a lot of pressure relief for the otm 308 and that’s y it didn’t look as good.
@adam-nv9zo...Just wanted to send a message to let you know that part 2 in this series was recently produced. Here is a link to the sequel.
ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html
Hope you will find it to be on par with or better than the original. 😉👍
Never suspected the 5.56 would have that hydro effect. Thank You.
Or can we called it NATO effect ?
5.56 has the hydro effect like that just cause of the speed, it's why 5.56 produces such big temporary wound cavities for its size
Awesome video! not weighed down with crappy music or stupid shots of gun nuts wearing cringy wrap around sunglasses standing in front of their Ford 150s. Precise, educational, and to the point. Subscribed, thank you!
It's almost like Mr. Stoner knew what he was doing.
The AR10 in 762 was his first AR. The mil wanted the 556.
Shot placement is paramount
He did. In spades !! ♠♠♠
Beyond the information in the video, which was very good, the frame by frame analysis at the end was exceptionally well done. This is the first video I have seen that has gone into that much detail. Full credit for doing a good job with this video.
Thank you for your kind words. Much appreciated. Wanted to respond sooner but was working on producing a sequel to this vid. Here is the link to part 2.
ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html
Hope you will find it to be as good or better than the original. 👍😎
Very good video. I'm surprised at the 5.56. I Very much like that you did all of these at 300 yards.
Would be interesting to see how the 168 gr would have faired if the cap of the jug would have stayed on like the other two, It looks like it made a good relief valve.
I agree with you, a rerun without failure of the cap would, I think, have much different results.
Agreed, would like to see another test. Is it possible that the initial pressure upon impact is significant enough that the cap would come off no matter what?
hydrostatic shock !
The cap didn’t fail. The 168 gr projectile is moving much slower, so it gave the cap time to “react”.
The faster moving projectiles did not give the cap time to react and blew the wall instead of the cap.
Velocity out ways mass every time.
The nazi’s were a prime example of mass, had a cannon bigger than a locomotive, sure it could reek havoc., But Tesla knew if you fired a grain of sand at a 100,000 fps that the devastation would be immense. “Particle beam accelerator “
although shots 2 n 3 seem to show speed is better than weight for damage....idk
Okay...I'll admit, I was surprised by the results!
The 5.56 was far more impressive than I was expecting.
It seems to be the velocity greatly increases the effect...at least on water jugs.
Next, I'd like to see cinder blocks used as targets, I'd suspect the bigger yet slower bullets might do better.
But I don't know; therefore thank you for this video, I appreciate seeing those slow motion pics.
Very interesting.
Its all about the bullet. Someone who is an subject matter expert on all things 'guns and ammo', showed me how to make a 9mm round into a respectful self defense round. Pick the right gun, ammo for the task at hand. For self defense, I try to maximize the hydraulic shock of the bullet. For bear defense, I only go out with hard cast bullets for penetration (I cast my own, 10mm, 357mag)
The 16" barrel handicapped the 308 compared to an 18" barrel for the 5.56. The 308 really gains velocity with the longer barrel, out to about 22" or so.
Thank you Mr. Claus for taking the time to watch the video and for sharing some intelligent food for thought.
In fact, both calibers were somewhat handicapped by barrel length. They both would have benefited from longer length barrels (especially if both were test fired from a bolt action.)
At a very close distance like 50 or 100 yards this would have been a greater factor to consider, but at a distance of 300 yards, with both rounds having a chance to lose a lot of velocity I would have thought that the .308 could have easily overcome the difference in barrel length.
Incorrect
@@dylandewd5356 Correct
Greeting Mr. Claus. Just wanted to send you a friendly message to let you know that a sequel to this video has been produced and that your ideas were carefully considered when making part 2 in this series. Here is the link to part 2.
ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html
Hope you will find it to be useful. Looking forward to your reply in the comments section of the new video. Thanks. 😎
I'd like to see more centered hits... 1ft off target on 308... Come on...
Holy crap! I’m sold on 5.56 round. Thank you for proving how effective this round truly is.
No 308 round is necessary for me.
Thought the impact of the 5.56 was more impressive of the three. Absolutely amazing.
It seems like you are not alone in your views.
Just wanted to send you a message to let you know that a sequel to this vid has been produced. Here is a link to it.
ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html
Hope you will like it as much as the original. 🙂👍
That was simply amazing and not what I was expecting. You’ve done a great job in showing how effective the Mk262 round is. It helps explain why it was such a coveted round in the Middle East war.
Thank you for your compliment. Much appreciated.
@Dennisthemenace40. Just wanted to send a message to let you know that part 2 in this video series was recently produced. Here is a link to the sequel.
ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html
Hope you will find it to be on par with the first one. 😎👍
Technically, it's not a MK262 as that is only produced by Black Hills. That said, this sig version of the 262 seemed to have better numbers than I get from my lot of BH MK263, which clocks in at 2,779fps from my 18" white oak. I'm very impressed with this Sig version and now have to try it. I reload a 77gr using IMR8208xbr which I have gotten up to 2,836 in 10 shot avg as opposed to the BH MK262 at 2,779.
Either way, this is ine of the most impressive and surprising test I have seen, and goes to show that numbers can be deceiving.
Maybe even a 300 black out
A really good video for all the haters and doubters of .556. An excellent performer and reliable round.
Nice shooting, frame by frame. Thank you.
I think all three would warrant the Dr. McCoy exclamation: "He's dead, Jim!"
Great photography & attention to detail; thanks for the work you put in.
The only thing missing is some color mixed in the water which makes the hits look far more dramatic.
Velocity is the key to hydrostatic shock. The water won’t compress. The energy from the higher speed round creates the explosion.
and humans are mostly water
Thank you for taking the time to watch the video and for providing some solid food for thought. Wanted to respond sooner but was busy producing the sequel to this vid. Here is the link to it. ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html
Hope you will find it to be on par with or better than the original. 🙂👍
@stephenbrown9068. That is a very true statement. Wanted to respond sooner. Was tied up with making the sequel to this vid.
Her is the link to it. ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html
Hope you will find it to be beneficial. 👍
It Looks Like The Old 5.56 Is Definitely A Highly Effective Round Out To 300 Yards!
So Much For All Of The Hate It Receives From Some Folks! Using The Right Type Of Ammo Truly Makes A Difference In Effectiveness! ✌️🇺🇸✌️
It’ll go way past 300 yards. 😉
You've presented a real learning experience, and done a lot of work to do that. So Thank You from Canada!
Excellent video with a very well done testing protocol. The results belie what the figures on paper would suggest. I have a newfound respect for the 77gr 5.56. While others have pointed out that soft points in the other two calibers might have produced different results, there’s no denying the explosive power of the 5.56 at 300 yards. Thank you for your excellent testing work.
@Jeffwaltonbooks894. Thank you for your encouraging words. Much appreciated. Wanted to reply sooner but have been working on the sequel to this video which was recently completed. Here is a link to part 2.
ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html
Hope you will find the sequel to be on par with or better than the original. Thanks 👍
That was pretty amazing to see. Definitely, not what I was expecting. That 147 grain and the 223 were exceptional rounds! I was really surprised at how explosive the .223 was at that distance. Thanks for the video! Hope to see more of them!
Man though that 9mm
Thank you FrogSqueal for watching the video, sharing your views, and for the compliment. Nice trifecta...
More to follow...
Just wanted to send a message to let you know that the sequel to this vid has been produced. Here is the link to it.
ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html
Hope you will find it to be beneficial. 🙂👍
When they say "speed kills" they weren't kidding! Very cool video!
Well done. I enjoyed how you narrated what you were doing as you were doing it. ie: walking up to each water bottle that we just shot with a…
Thank you for the compliment. Always nice to hear an encouraging word. 🙂👍
Great job! Very well presented and surprisingly educational 😊
Thank you for your kind words. Much appreciated.
Just wanted to send a message to let you know that a sequel to this vid has been produced. Here is a link to it.
ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html
Hope that you will find it to be or par with or better than the original. 🙂
Wow! I am pleased to see the piwer of the 5.56!
That was really cool. I’d love to see other .223 and 5.56 rounds. Namely 62 and 55 grain…I suppose I could get off my lazy butt and do it myself. But your camera work and narration is excellent. Thanks!
Lol…edit…just subbed and checked out your channel…and there’s the videos! On my way to see what happens!
NICE
Great looking show! Excellent job!
I reload 5.56 on a Dillon XL650.
I have 100 rounds loaded of the 77 grain projectiles. They are devastating. Love em.
I'm theorizing that the 5.56 77 gr tumbled and broke up, expending all striking force in the jug. The heavier 168gr / 147 gr bullets, with higher striking force, remained more stable and punched through, only expending partial striking force in the jug. Trying the same test again with soft point hunting ammo in all calibers would allow the heavier .308 bullets to expend most bullet striking force in the jug. In testing .31 and .36 caliber cap and ball revolvers, using original 1850's era pointed conical bullets moving at ~900 fps, the little .31 80 grain conical actually had more explosive damage on the 1st 1 gallon water jug than the .36 125 grain conical even though the 125 grain .36 actually has about 60% greater striking force. The reason was because the .31 cal 80 grain conical tumbled on impact, while the .36 125 gr conical punched straight thru!
I think you are right. The impact on the dirt behind the jug seems to have a lot more energy with the .308 than with the 5.56.
Yeah, I was wondering if a 1 in 8 was enough to stabilize such a heavy 5.56 round. A 55 grain or 62 grain, sure.
@@section8usmc53 1:8 is actually the preferred twist rate for shooting 77gr ammo. The reason 1:7 exists is to be able to stabilize tracers from my understanding. Looking at a tracer outside of the case it is considerably longer than 77gr otm
At 12:00 minutes I see what appears to be a round hole not a key hole
WELL SAID
For years there has been a debate about using 22 caliber bullets to hunt deer and even larger game, this test goes to show the .224 bullet at high velocity creates a massive pressure wave and the damage it can inflict is enormous. Ron Spomer talked about a market hunter in Alaska named Frank Glaser, he worked for the Army and road building crews to keep them supplied with meat, his cartridge of choice the 220 Swift with 48 gr bullets. If you do not know the the 220 Swift is fastest commercially produced cartridge ever with a velocity of 4,665 fps(Wikipedia). Frank Glaser trapped/ hunted wolves, moose, Caribou, and even several grizzly bears with the 220 Swift, he stated moose and caribou just dropped when shot in the lungs with the 220 Swift. There was another trapper/hunter in Alberta Canada named Bella Twin in 1953 she killed a world record grizzly bear with a single shot 22LR rifle to the side of the head. She made sure the bear was dead with several follow up shots to the brain. When you consider with well built bullets like the Barnes TTSX and especially the 77 gr LRX have very high BC numbers, are ultra efficient in flight, penetrate deep, have less drift and drop than even the much lauded 6.5 crowd and with the ultra high velocities create damage patterns mimicking much larger cartridges it is understandable why the 22 caliber can be an lethal and ethical choice for harvesting game when the hunter does their job accurately placing the shot.
Alot of Alaskans use .270 win. Very good round.
Unless your a crack shot and know exactly what's vital and how to angle the shots just right big game would just get pissed off
It’s been said time and time again that a .22 can kill almost any animal IF the shot is placed correctly, .223 is no different but why use the bare minimum to hunt? .223 is good for lightskin deer size game within 100-150yds but as far as elk and moose? There are far better choices for game of that size, let alone brown bears.
If you know how to aim
Most deer Hunters blast
And consider the smaller caliber gun is lighter and you can carry more ammunition for less weight. This was literally the logic for Stoner.
Great video. Thank you for taking the time to make and post.
Thank you
Subscribed. Very well presented with the numbers and how those numbers translated to actual target impact. Thank you.
Thank you for taking the time to watch the video, comment, and subscribe. Perfect trifecta...Nicely done.
Wow, not what I expected. Very well made video.
Thank you Mr. Mccoy for your compliment. Much apprecriated.
i think i need more 77 gr otm for my arsenal! Awesome comparison, thank you!
Thank you Mr. Chan for your kind words. Much appreciated.
Very surprising results.
Thanks for the very informative video.
The little 5.56 may have had less kinetic energy at 300 yards, but it was able to impart a higher percentage of what it had into the jug than what the two larger rounds could do. Had there been two jugs in each shot, the 5.56 likely wouldn't have done as much damage to the second, even though the first would've been eviscerated.
Did not expect those results at all . Good video I enjoyed it .
A real study in fluid/hydraulic physics. Certainly more informative than I would have imagined.
Unfortunately the energy of the 7.62 passed on through. Maybe a lighter weight bullet so that it could break up and all energy could transfer to the jug. Amazing what the 77 grain did though.
What we're seeing here is penetration capacity. What would be the outcome if there had been a second jug set up behind each of the three tested here? How much damage would have been done to the second target? What would happen if the jugs were set up at 500 yards instead of three. Air is fluid and has significant resistance when objects are moving as fast as bullets. People don't think about a bullet flight as penetration of Air. But that is essentially what happens.
I imagine a second jug from the 168gr would look like the 77gr from the first jug.
A V-MAX would be perfext for this...
Thank you Pumpkoi for your ideas and enthusiasm on the v-max. You will be pleased to hear that the v-max version(s) are already filmed and are being edited now...
A hollow point varmint bullet would expand and dump energy with the 308’s.
Looks like you’re doing that next…. 😎
Wait, what?? For reals you did an amazing job in this video. Thanx a bunch for making it and posting it. My mind is still trying to catch up on how destructive that little bullet is!!!!!
Thank you "Slash From Tx" for taking the time to watch the video and for your kind words. Much appreciated.
Just wanted to send a message to let you know that a sequel to this vid has been produced. Here is a link to it.
ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html
Hope you will find it to be on par with the original (if not better.) 🙂👍
It certainly shows what damage that a hollow point heavy for caliber bullet will do in the 223.
I am more amazed at with 147 grain ball round did as compared to the two hollow-point rounds. For me it's 308 all day, and that really opened my eyes as to what the ball round did compared to hollow points. I have a lot more confidence in my 308 with 147 grain ball ammo. Great video
Keep in mind, Open Tip Match (OTP) rounds do not function like a traditional hollow point. The open tip is to help with the flight of the round, but doesn't cause expansion. You need a hunting projectile usually for expansion in rifle rounds. Using a soft tip or one of the polymer tip hunting rounds would have had a more energy transfer into the jug and a bigger show. The first round just zipped through the jug, based on that exit hole.
@@jasonk.3182 Now try that experiment with a 243 Winchester and a varmint round. A 55gr bullet out of a 243 is pushing 4000 fps. Hit a water jug with a 243 using a 55 gr Sierra Blitz King and you time the jug for hang time, lol....
He should try a liberty defense 100 grain 308 round which goes 3800 fps out of a 22 inch barrel.
@Netravler1, Thank you for taking the time to watch the video and for your enthusiasm. Wanted to respond sooner but was working on the sequel to this vid. Here is the link to it.
ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html
Hope you will find it to be on par with or better than the original.🙂👍
I love the 223/556 and great shooting,thanks
Thank you Mr. Blackbird for your compliment. Much appreciated.
From my personal experience of shooting various water jugs with different calibers is that the bullet type makes a huge difference, had the 7.62/51 - 308 cartridges been soft points, or the like, you'd have seen much more damage. The hollow point used here is a target orientated round, not an expanding hollow point. Having said that the smaller 223 round di far more than expected, but ultimately it's about transferring the energy from the bullet to the target and the 7.62/308 rounds powered through, where as the 223 dumped more energy into the water and jug, despite being the less powerful round.
Thanks for watching the video and for sharing your ideas. Much appreciated. Wanted to respond sooner but have been busy producing the sequel to this vid. Here is the link to it.
ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html
I do plan on different types of ammo for each like you suggested. stay tuned. 👍
That hollow point expands...much more so than the soft points which are disigned to retain weight as the HP does not do as well.
I love comparisons like this! I honestly thot the 7.62 would have the most damage with its speed and mass. Hopefully one day you'll get sponsored and able to use the body ballistic gel.
Thank you Spartan Chi Rio for your kind words and enthusiasm. Much appreciated. 👍
If you're shooting a jug of water, there's nothing better than a 5.56. It fragments so easily that it makes for a fun show. Still has a lot less energy than a .308 has though. They both have their uses.
5.56 was a hollow point. 7.62 were ball.
The 762 does do the most damage .. let’s go to Kodiak
Here is a link to part 2 of this series.
ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html
Hope you will find it to be as good or better than the original. 😎👍
BEST video I have EVER seen on this subject. Thank you! 🎉
Thank you for your kind words and for being generous with your compliments. Much appreciated.
The 308 had more penitration follow through as it came out the back and imbeded itself in the top of the bank. Works for me.
very interesting results from the 5.56, thanks for the video
Agreed...
That 308 ball round did better than I would have thought
I completely agree...
This was an excellent and informative presentation!
Thank you Mr. Smith for your kind words. Much appreciated.
After past conversation I've had and being in support of the 556, I am extremely impressed. I knew the 556 was excellent but not to this extreme. Blown away just doesn't seem to cover it. Thanks for demonstration
I thought this comparison would be silly, i stand corrected.
The more i learn about 5.56 the more amazed i am. Such a tiny little thing. Cookin.
Fascinating, would love to see a comparison with the 6.5 creedmoor and the 277 sign fury/6.8x51mm
Mr. Saunders, you are not alone in those views. Will see what we can do...
Thanks for taking the time to make this. The outcome was not what I was expecting!
Similar test were done in the 1960's during the military testing of the 5.56 round compared to the standard 7.62x51 M14 round. The evolution of the testing resulted in our military adopting the 5.56 and Mr. Stoner's M16 rifle over the standard M14 for service in Vietnam. Our military still uses some M14's in special applications & the 7.62x51 is still in use by our military in the " squad automatic rifles" and it is still in service all over the world as the 7.62NATO round.
The cap coming off of the first test completely changed the outcome.
We cannot assume that each water bottle is manufactured very precisely as well so each bottle may have different flaws the structure. So single shot tests are not enough of it comparison statistically to make completely valid conclusions..
It is extremely interesting though and I thank you for doing this very much! Thanks for being so thorough about the projectiles in the velocities and energies the different distances. That was super helpful!!!
Great job showing at distance difference between these two calibers. Not sure I was expecting that for an outcome, but it gives me mad respect for the 556. Surprisingly, this is exactly the kind of experiment I was hoping to see done.
Picked up some 7.62x51 service grade M118LR recently so I can do a 200-yard sighting on my SFAR. Did well on ball ammo at 100 yards..working on putting out a short video in a couple days.
Thank you for your kind words. Much appreciated. The results were more impressive in person, especially when being able to see the hits through the scope. The camera can only do so much to convey what really happened…
Also, have you upgraded the trigger yet in your sfar to help with down range accuracy….
Without the benefit of a better trigger (on each rifle) I would not have been able to make those shots at 300…
@@outdooradventures1696 Time will tell after I shoot at distance. The trigger is light enough that it certainly makes it easier for accuracy, which is usually my biggest handicap, considering I have a muscle disorder. I fear that my biggest setback was getting a 1x6 scope. Should have went for more magnification.
Keep up with the videos if you enjoy doing so. You did well, a lot of work and planning. I'll have to check out your other ones.
Here is a link to another vid with similar testing at 300 yards on 5 gallon water jugs. Hope is helps.
ua-cam.com/video/ipPiTKWHXuM/v-deo.html
Nicely done. Good representation on hydrostatic shock. That energy dump from the 147 and especially the 77 @300yd is definitely impressive. Highly doubt all these folks running around with *truck guns* 10.5 and shorter will ever see results remotely close to the 18in used in this test. It's still extremely impressive. Thank you
Fantastic demo. Thank you
Very impressive photography. Congrats on this great video.
Thank you for your kind words. Much appreciated. 👍🙂
*_TOP-TIER_* video production value . . . maybe in addition to the target sticker you could mark the plastic water jugs with some reference lines or marks with a black felt pen marker to help identify the front . . . the reference lines/marks would help to positively identify the projectile entrance hole *_post-mortem_* if the target sticker comes completely off and the water jug ends up *_totally_* shredded . . . I have a feeling securing the cap with duct tape would result in some pretty *_spectacular_* impacts . . . compliments again on how outstanding well this video was put together . . . you set a benchmark by which other range test videos should be measured . . . 👍🏼
Thank you miraclemax08 for taking the time to watch the video, provide intelligent food for thought, and for being far too generous with your compliments. Much appreciated.
Greetings Miraclemax08. Just wanted to send you a message to let you know that a sequel to this vid has been produced. Here is the link to it.
ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html
Hope you will find it to be on par with if not better than the original. 🙂👍
@@outdooradventures1696 just watched the follow-up video and it is as equally well produced as the first . . . the *_only_* way the follow-up video can be said to be *_better_* than the original is to point out how well *_commenter_* concerns were addressed . . . another outstanding job on the follow-up video
I love my Savage .308 but those results are pretty conclusive. Sheesh. Glad I got a 5.56 too, ha-ha! Nice comparo! And thank you.
Thanks for your compliments. Much appreciated. Wanted to respond sooner but was putting the finishing touches on the sequel to this vid. Here is a link to it.
ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html
I hope you will find it on par with or better than the original.
BTW the first time I ever shot a .308 was from a bolt action savage years ago. Still remember how great that felt. 🙂👍
Thanks for your effort$ (& time) to produce this very nice info-clip and yes, I'll get some 5.56 heavier
77 grain hunting rounds since I'll take AR-15's if we get the hunting permits for this year - take care!
Thanks!
You are certainly welcome.
Data ,results comparison, organized thought make this well done !
Thank you Mr. DaVinci for your compliment. Much appreciated.
If the cap stayed on for the .308 it would have been the same results as the 7.62x51. If you had left the cap off the results would be the holes left behind.
That 5.56 was definitely devastating can’t believe it did that wow.
that was surprising and educational. thank you for running the experiment.
Thank you for your kind words. Much appreciated.
On the first shot, the cap popped off. On the other two, the cap stayed in place, allowing for more internal pressure. I would like the see a "re-shoot" of the first round, to see if the cap stays on, and if the explosion would indeed be similar.
@vincentrobinette1507 Thanks for taking the time to watch the video and to share your ideas. Wanted to reply sooner but was making a sequel to this vid that addressed the points you raised.
Here is a link to it.
ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html
Hope you will find it to be beneficial. 🙂👍
Was that 5,56 bullet a varmint hunting hollow point ?
This was completely the opposite of what I expected
The 5.56 was a 77 grain open tip match. Technically that would be considered a hollow point. Not sure about the "Varmint" part of the description...
Good and interesting video. Great shooting! Thanks for sharing. Take care.
Thank you. Much appreciated.
WOW! The energy hitting is impressive!
77gr at 2913 is hard to believe. As one who reloads the 77 OTM and also uses an 18” barrel, I know there is not enough case capacity to achieve this velocity . Their own website shows 2750 and we all know they 24” barrels for testing.
Thank you Mr yeates26 for taking the time to watch the video and to offer some intelligent food for thought. Much appreciated. Please keep in mind that this video was published on 12/05/2022 and the chronographing was done a few days prior. Here is a link to a video that was posted on 4/25/2022 (nearly 8 months earlier) in which the readings were even faster than 2913 fps. I can vouch for the fact that different boxes of ammo were used in each speed test and the weather conditions were different 8 months earlier.
ua-cam.com/video/7d3EBUEIbHs/v-deo.html
In each video other thinking people just like you have commented on the speed of the 77 grain bullet but yet nobody has disputed the readings of the other bullets being tested on either date. That being said, it begs the question, "why would the chronograph only give a bad reading on the exact same bullet 8 months apart?" If however, the reading was off and we use the reading that is on the back of the box of 2750 fps at muzzle, that would mean that the impact velocity would be about 2050 fps at 300 yards rather than 2188 fps.
2050 fps of speed at 300 yards is barely faster than either the .308 or 7.62 x 51 rounds being tested and would not really justify how well the 5.56 performed in comparison...
What may account for the extra speed is that the rounds were tested at 3400 feet above sea level. Looking forward to your ideas on this... Thanks.
@@outdooradventures1696 all I’m saying is facts are facts. Even the manufacturer doesn’t claim this speed. Bottom line, case capacity does not allow for 77gr projectiles to reach stated 2913+ fps. If you’re reloading, you can get closer. But, factory loaded, SAAMI spec 77gr OTM will not achieve said velocity.
@yeates26…Thanks for the reply and additional knowledge. Both are appreciated.
@@yeates26 All I can get out of a 16" barrel with 62 grain projectiles is 2860. An 18" barrel might push it to 2900, but it's just not happening with a 77 grain pill.
I have both... they are both affordable and effective. Thank you for this video.
Considering that the smaller projectile did so much damage... I'm curious; what would a 22 do?
If you could hit it, I think it would bust a small hole through one side and spring a leak. Maybe something heavy and fast like velocitor would split it a little, but I dunno. It would not penetrate the back side. Curious too though!
@@rob6850 Even a 22 mag will not match the combination of bullet weight and velocity of the 5.56.
Great video.
The 556 surprised me.
Would like to see 180 gr. Core lokt. I always have to the best expansion with the Cor lokt. 2700 FT. Pounds. Very good video. Building my first Wylde. Can't wait to get some rounds through after this video.
agree a hunting load would have been great
As for the effects of the 5.56 hit, remember that kinetic energy delivered equals the square root of mass times velocity squared. Don’t underestimate the 5.56 due to the smaller bullet weight. It’s moving very fast, and the velocity factor is squared as compared to the mass of the bullet.
High velocity and bullet fragmentation generate a more explosive wound channel or water displacement with the smaller caliber but when it comes to game animals where bone and flesh absorb the impact of the bullet everything changes. Lack of penitration and grenaiding projectiles can cause superficial wounding. A bonded bullet like Bond Strike or Speer Impact will hold together giving a passthrough while still giving a large energy dump. Water is an ok medium as long as you use wood to simulate bone for a realistic test.
Yes, bonded makes a difference.
I have hunted whitetail deer for decades but in the last 10 years or so, I have only hunted with a .223 in a 26” barrel bolt action instead of my usual .270.
I have always had a pass through with an exit hole of at least .50 caliber. I have never had a deer go more than maybe 15 yards.
I usually hunt about 100 yards so never at a long range. In fact if I was going to reach out 200 or more yards I would probably go with the .270.
But… my longest kill ever was at 118 yards ( according to the range finder) with the .223. It was a buck quartering at me so not an optimal shot choice but it was getting late.
The 62gr bonded round (Federal LE223T3) went through the left shoulder joint, shattering the bones and continued through the heart and exited the other side. The deer rose up on his hind legs, walked a couple of steps and the fell dead.
I had a friend with me in the blind witness it and when we cleaned the deer, he could not believe the round went through the joint and still at an angle (making it travel farther), exited the other side. The leg joint appeared to be no hinderance at all.
At a longer range? The .223 would probably be lacking and certainly more so than a more standard deer cartridge like the .270, .308, etc.
Within a little over 100 yards, the bones didn’t seem to have much to do with the effectiveness of the round. I am fairly certain that the hunting rifle barrel instead of a short 16” AR type barrel probably had a lot to do with it.
Fascinating results! Well done.
Thank you.
Pretty cool. Not many videos with actual tests on longer shots out there. 300 yards is rather normal range in western states and nobody impact tests out that far. Appreciate the hard work. Thanks
Thanks for your kind words. Much appreciated. Wanted to respond sooner but was working hard on producing a sequel to this vid. Here is a link to it.
ua-cam.com/video/jyKcyXacBh4/v-deo.html
Hope you will find it to be on par with if not better than the original. 🙂👍
The water spout from the 223 looks like a dragon taking flight. Not what I expected from that comparison. 👍🏻
An active imagination....I love it..
VERY interesting. From what I saw here, I would opt for the .556 over the 7.62, regarding the pressure cavity that is formed. HOWEVER, the 7.62 will always be superior in sufficiently penetrating any cover to get THROUGH the target behind the cover with enough lethal energy.
Thank you Mr. Hawk for taking the time to watch the video and for providing a worthwhile comment. Much appreciated.
@@outdooradventures1696 You are most welcome, and, I really did enjoy your video!
I was not expecting those results.
Good stuff.
Thanks
Assuming there was no tampering with those Jugs, this is very shocking. I would never have thought the 5.56 would be that much more violent compared to the 308. Extremely interesting.
Because the 308 went through. Water is much softer than tissue, which is why ballistic gel is used.
The 556 is better for water zombies!
This was never about penetration, it was about velocity and the shock wave that was created. If this were about blasting concrete blocks, then the outcome would be much different.
The 308 needs velocity for an otm to open. An actual hunting round would have made a huge difference along with a real barrel not a 16".
He even gave the 556 an 18" barrel it simply had the velocity advantage needed to dump energy in the target rather than behind the target
The .556 slowed down faster and dumped more energy into the water. The .308/.762 passed through. Also the loss of the cap on the .308 168gr caused loss of hydrostatic pressure and limited damage to the bottle.
OTM doesn't act like a hollowpoint designed for expansion.
It tends to act like a thin skinned FMJ, breaking when it yaws.
The little 5.56 cartridge comes through with outstanding results! 👍
IMHO, the 308 round was the hands down winner. But it's hard to tell with only one jug in the lineup. Plus, a 16 inch barrel is a tad short for the 308. Its not going to represent what that round is capable of. It would have been fun to see what would have happened to jugs 2, 3, and 4. Thanks for the vid.
OK, I started watching this out of boredom and was totally unimpressed the the bullet choices and target. "This guy is really an amateur" there obviously isnt any valuable information to be had by this experiment. but here I am at the end of the video totally surprised at the outcome and appreciative of the detail provided. Well done sir! You made a We'll done video that was quite worth my time. Will watch more!
Did you Chronograph those loads with the rifles you used in this test? 2913fps is INSANE for a 77gr out of an 18in barrel.
@ mr Grill…yes indeed, the 77 grain bullets were indeed chronographed from the rifle used in the vid.
Here is a link to a vid that shows the rifle and shows some 55, 62, & 68 grain being used on 5 gallon jugs.
ua-cam.com/video/_t3fS70Z4_4/v-deo.html
@outdoor adventures wow. That is a good bit faster than mk262 out of a 20 inch barrel. I might have to Chrono some of that sig stuff. Thanks.
No worries. Happy to help.
Fantastic video right combo of bullets and distance
The differences in terminal performance have more to do with the bullet construction than any differences in impact velocity or terminal kinetic energy.
It is obvious the smaller, less energetic 5.56 imparted a much larger percentage of its kinetic energy into the water.
You could play around with bullet choice and get the 7.62 to dump the same percentage of its greater kinetic energy into the water and it would be even more spectacular.
You would see as much or more damage on a. second or third jug wit the 308. With an FMJ round, one jug doesn't have enough resistance to make for a spectacular hit.
Exactly what I expected. I've owned a mini-14 for decades and I have seen some impressive performance from this little cartridge.
I love these types of videos! 👍🏼🇺🇸
The 168 gr match is loaded for a 24" barrel which would give you about 400 more fps than the 16" barrel you used. the 5.56 uses a 16" barrel normally.
Wow 556 is very impressive, great job on filming and editing!
Idk if you are aware but the .308 had the best results. Kinetic energy moving through the medium of water not only lifted a 40 gallon jug but spin the container off.
Very high quality video, well done!
Hey there!
Just stumbled onto this video after picking up a Ruger SFAR myself recently (haven't had a chance to start shooting it yet... waiting for the holidays to go past).
Have you noticed any difference in using .308 vs 7.62 in the SFAR? I actually asked Ruger if it was ok to fire both as i know there is a 'slight' difference in the two rounds due to the differences in the case-thickness.
Their response was: The Ruger SFAR is 7.62x51 and can also use .308 factory ammunition loaded to United States industry specifications.
But.. seeing as you just did a video doing exactly that (using both rounds), thoughts?
Thank you for taking the time to watch the video. Much appreciated. From what I understand from the factory (and from firsthand experience) the rifle can handle both .308 and 7.62 x 51. Here is a link to a more complete review of the Ruger SFAR that I did recently. ua-cam.com/video/Cjc5AuRFPow/v-deo.html
hope it will be useful as well. 👍