Ballistics Myth Buster?

Stumbled on this looking for something else. Challenges some theories about ballistic wounds and the experiments which provide our knowledge, including the M16 “tumbling” round. (Yes, I know it didn’t tumble in normal flight like the popular myths said, but it was said by more serious theorists to be an inherently unstable round which would “tumble” after hitting obstructions, including body tissue and bone.)

No idea if it’s right or wrong, but it presents good arguments.

http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html

As you probably know RS, Fackler is one of the leading lights in the calculation and treatment of GSWs, we’ve always been very attentive of his opinions.

Here’s his review of Bullet Penetration by Duncan MacPherson

I’m aware that the work is over ten years old, but it’s still germane and well worth reading.

Without reading the link, I’ve read the 5.56X45mm M193 round didn’t tumble as much as it would explode or shatter on impact at short ranges (about 10-15 meters)…

This is just a guess. But I wonder if some of the tumbling myths came about when the 5.56mm moving at high velocities struck jungle foliage causing the rounds to deflect and tumble in Vietnam?