Yea, that M193 test seems to be an outlier result.

Overall, a worthwhile lecture IMHO… However, the presenter is not entirely correct when discussing kinetic energy. He implies that kinetic energy alone is not enough to make a high-velocity projectile effective. This is clearly false, and later in the presentation – perhaps inadvertently – he proves it by showing the dramatic performance of the Barnes 150-grain .308 caliber load as compared to the earlier examples in .224-caliber. Consider an extreme or exaggerated example: A battlefield combatant unfortunate-enough to get in the way of a 750-grain FMJ/Ball .50-caliber BMG projectile moving at 2820 fps will literally be obliterated if the hit is at all center-mass. Why? Because that round possesses so much kinetic energy (13241 ft-lbs) that it literally overwhelms the ability of the tissues of the human body to remain joined together by the normal means -whether chemical, physical or biological. Remember, too, that if the projectile is still spinning at anything like high revolutions-per-minute, the force applied isn’t simply going to be linear along the axis of the projectile path, but rotational – as that massive torque is applied to the tissues of the target. Kinetic energy is extremely important to terminal ballistic performance. It is simply that when dealing with ordinary small arms fire – handgun and small-bore rifle cartridges (most militaries define ‘small-bore’ as being .30-caliber or less), the effects are not as pronounced as with larger, heavier ordnance and are therefore not always easily calculated or their effects readily observed. Companies which make hunting, anti-personnel (self-defense) and similar loads for small-arms generally consider three main axes when designing a projectile and a performance envelope for it: Penetration, expansion, and muzzle velocity. By international agreement, many nations abide by rules prohibiting expanding or hollow-point bullets in small-arms ammunition, but over the years, R&D has uncovered a variety of work-arounds which allow militaries to abide by the letter of the law if not always the spirit. Regarding the performance of 55-grain M193 Ball/FMJ, the presenter did not provide much information about the manufacturer, date/time of manufacture, and other variables. If we assume that the round was produced according to NATO specs, that narrows the field somewhat, but still leaves some things open to question. How long was the cartridge in storage before being fired? What firearm was used to fire it, with what length and twist rate of barrel? Did it meet the velocity spec originally set forth by the STANAG aggreement? And so on… As far back as Vietnam, the operational performance of M193 Ball was inconsistent and tough-to-pin down when doing after-action reports, intelligence estimates and the like. Soldiers and Marines reported occasions when the new M-16 and its ammunition provided devastatingly-effective results against enemy personnel, but other reports provided conflicting information suggesting dissatisfaction with the performance of the new cartridge as fired from the new weapon. These inconsistencies in data were not pinned down entirely during the war and it was some years later before ballistics and other authorities understood the mechanisms involved in the… Read more »