US military ammunition issues

[nycGUNguy 61]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_...y_chief_bullets

 

Just an interesting article about the ammo used by our forces around the world.

 

nyclu3

[loki0629 55]

In close quarters the .223 really needs to be shot low...like in the pelvic/groin region. You'll drop someone if you hit the pelvic bones and then you go for the head shot. Or you can go straight for the head shot if you've got the time to aim in.

 

Or you can pick up an AK.

[nycGUNguy 61]

Thanks for the info. I'm glad I have a 7-2 AK to AR ratio available to me in the safes. But good to know on the shot placement. What do you think of the 6.8SPC ammo? I've been thinking of getting a 20" 6.8 SPC upper from Model 1 sales with a 25rd mag. Any thoughts other than availability of ammo?

 

nyclu3

[THE_HUNTER 2]

Remember we can use softpoint and hollowpoint ammo.I never signed the Hague Convention

[jhereg 0]

From what I understand the problem isn't the bullets, it's the rifles. With 5.56 ball you need to be above the fragmentation velocity to keep the round from icepicking. The 62 & 55 grain loads both have about the same fragmentation velocity (approx 2700fps IIRC). We have gone to heavier bullets and shorter barrels. I don't have the chart right now w/ fragmentation ranges by bullet type, but here's a page w/ some info.

 

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pagea18.htm

 

Here's the numbers I was looking for

 

Distance to 2700 fps

a. 20" Barrel

b. 16" Barrel

c. 14.5" Barrel

d. 11.5" Barrel

 

M193

a. 190-200m

b. 140-150m

c. 95-100m

d. 40-45m

 

M855

a. 140-150m

b. 90-95m

c. 45-50m

d. 12-15m

 

-----

If you look at the section for M855, you are dropping below 2700 fps at about 45 - 50m. If you use a 20" barrel you have a fragmentation range of about 140-150m. Triple the fragmentation and more damage. 5.56 ball depends on fragmentation, once you get below 2700 you won't (reliably) get it. The easy fix is to give everyone 20" rifles again, but then you give up the CQB abilities of the shorter carbine. Everything is a compromise. I've talked to a lot of guys who have come back from the sandbox, and I haven't heard many complaints about our weapon systems or ammo.

[ClickClickD'oh 1]

The easy fix is to give everyone 20" rifles again, but then you give up the CQB abilities of the shorter carbine.

Or you could go with lighter bullets since you don't need the mass to punch through armor anymore.

 

I bet some 50gr varmint bullets would do a doozy on some terrorists.

[jhereg 0]

The easy fix is to give everyone 20" rifles again, but then you give up the CQB abilities of the shorter carbine.

Or you could go with lighter bullets since you don't need the mass to punch through armor anymore.

 

I bet some 50gr varmint bullets would do a doozy on some terrorists.

 

Too light IMO. Would be prone to nasty flesh wounds, but wouldn't guarantee deep enough penetration to hit something vital. I'd rather go the way they are going w/ the new brown tip ammo. On the other hand IMO, I'd rather have ball ammo than a varmint ballistic tip which won't penetrate deep enough. IMO first you need a bullet that penetrates deep enough, then you want to maximize the damage it does, but if it doesn't penetrate deep enough to kill/stop, then you're wasting your time shooting it.

 

 

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/ar...s/20080516.aspx

 

Brown Tip 5.56mm for Short Barrels

May 16, 2008: U.S. SOCOM (Special Operations Command) has used its own, bureaucracy free, budget to design and manufacture special ammunition for the short barrel (10-15 inch) weapons (like the M-4 and SCAR Light). The new ammo, referred to as "5.56 Optimized", or "brown tip" (because the tips of the bullets are brown for easy identification) uses a bullet that is solid copper and 70 grains in weight (compared to 62 grains for the NATO standard 5.56 bullet). The solid copper design is believed to be based on a commercial design (the Barnes Triple-Shock X) that was introduced five years ago. The new round was designed to achieve better accuracy and hitting power at the ranges (under 300 meters) the short barrel weapons are most effective at. The brown tip ammo costs more, because of its unique design and small production runs, but SOCOM doesn't worry about that when it's for something that will make its operators more effective, and help keep them alive.

[ClickClickD'oh 1]

Too light IMO. Would be prone to nasty flesh wounds, but wouldn't guarantee deep enough penetration to hit something vital.

Well, part of the reason for the decreased penetration is because of the high degree of fragmentation of the bullet.. which is spiffy killer in it's own special way. You don't have to blow a whole clean through a guy when you've wrecked everything inside. We get stuck in a loop of thinking that penetration is king. Not always. Penetration is important, but if you don't wreck anything on the way through it's not all that great. Which is the problem we are having with the M855. Plenty of through, not so much wrecking.

 

Even then Winchest 50gr ballistic tips demonstrate 12.25 inches of penetration out of a 16" barrel. That's going to really ruin your day. I've blown enough baseball sized holes out of coyotes to know that at six to eight inches of body penetration, that is not a wound to take lightly.

[jhereg 0]

Too light IMO. Would be prone to nasty flesh wounds, but wouldn't guarantee deep enough penetration to hit something vital.

Well, part of the reason for the decreased penetration is because of the high degree of fragmentation of the bullet.. which is spiffy killer in it's own special way. You don't have to blow a whole clean through a guy when you've wrecked everything inside. We get stuck in a loop of thinking that penetration is king. Not always. Penetration is important, but if you don't wreck anything on the way through it's not all that great. Which is the problem we are having with the M855. Plenty of through, not so much wrecking.

 

Even then Winchest 50gr ballistic tips demonstrate 12.25 inches of penetration out of a 16" barrel. That's going to really ruin your day. I've blown enough baseball sized holes out of coyotes to know that at six to eight inches of body penetration, that is not a wound to take lightly.

 

I currently load 55gr ballistic tip ammo in my ARs for social purposes, so I agree w/ you to an extent, but I don't think I trust anything much below 55 gr for social ammo. Sure it blows a big crater, but if they are wearing heavy clothing, are really muscular, fat, or just lucky you may not have enough penetration. I don't think penetration is king, but IMO you have to have enough penetration to hit vitals. Sufficient accuracy to hit something vital is most critical. Penetration deep enough to hit something vital w/ the shot is next. Anything past that is a bonus. I guess I'm a bit of a sceptic. I don't believe in magic bullets. I don't believe in shooting once if I need to. I believe in putting lead on target until the threat no longer exists, and I honestly would rather have a FMJ over a too light varmint bullet. Even out of my 11.5 SBR.

[Kwicko 8]

I don't know near enough of the particulars, but I'm guessing that the current rounds were designed in an era where we thought our next war would be fought against large numbers or organized troops along well-delineated battle lines. In such a context, the ideal situation (or so I've heard) is a bullet that will WOUND instead of one that will kill. Why? Because a dead soldier is taken out of the battle, but a badly wounded soldier has to be CARRIED out of the battle, usually by two or more other soldiers. So a bullet that wounds instead of kills is a force multiplier in such a "classic" battle scenario.

 

The problem we have now is that we're not in a classic scenario. We're fighting door-to-door, street by street, against individuals who are not organized into well-delineated battle lines. In such a situation, we need our troops to have bullets that KILL, and kill right now. A wounded insurgent is a force multiplier in his own right, but not in a good way - now we have to have two or more of our guys trying to transport him to medical help so his life can be saved and he can be interrogated.

 

I gather from one comment that the Hague Conventions ban us from using soft-point or hollow-point bullets in combat. Given our recent ability to parse words and meanings (from "It depends on what your definition of "is" is..." to "We don't torture."), I'd have to read the entire document, but if we're not fighting actual soldiers, and if "enemy combatants" aren't afforded the same protections as enemy soldiers would be, then why the hell aren't we sending our combat troops hollow-point, soft-point, and fragmenting ammo that would get the damn job done? Yes, that would be messy - but when someone comes around a corner aiming to make me a mess on the floor, I'll sleep better at night knowing that I made a mess of him instead.

 

I'm just sayin'...

 

And I could be way off base on all of that. What I don't know would stun a team of oxen...

 

[waltham_41 52]

They ought to have a member or two of every squad equipped with Saiga 12's loaded with #00 buck for close up fighting.

[Kwicko 8]

They ought to have a member or two of every squad equipped with Saiga 12's loaded with #00 buck for close up fighting.

 

Y'know, that's not a bad idea at all. Definitely lethal, not sure how international conventions look upon shotguns, but one can assume they're allowed. Cuts down on unintended casualties, too, since you don't have to worry too much about "wild fire" hitting people some distance away.

[jhereg 0]

I don't know near enough of the particulars, but I'm guessing that the current rounds were designed in an era where we thought our next war would be fought against large numbers or organized troops along well-delineated battle lines. In such a context, the ideal situation (or so I've heard) is a bullet that will WOUND instead of one that will kill. Why? Because a dead soldier is taken out of the battle, but a badly wounded soldier has to be CARRIED out of the battle, usually by two or more other soldiers. So a bullet that wounds instead of kills is a force multiplier in such a "classic" battle scenario.

 

The problem we have now is that we're not in a classic scenario. We're fighting door-to-door, street by street, against individuals who are not organized into well-delineated battle lines. In such a situation, we need our troops to have bullets that KILL, and kill right now. A wounded insurgent is a force multiplier in his own right, but not in a good way - now we have to have two or more of our guys trying to transport him to medical help so his life can be saved and he can be interrogated.

 

I gather from one comment that the Hague Conventions ban us from using soft-point or hollow-point bullets in combat. Given our recent ability to parse words and meanings (from "It depends on what your definition of "is" is..." to "We don't torture."), I'd have to read the entire document, but if we're not fighting actual soldiers, and if "enemy combatants" aren't afforded the same protections as enemy soldiers would be, then why the hell aren't we sending our combat troops hollow-point, soft-point, and fragmenting ammo that would get the damn job done? Yes, that would be messy - but when someone comes around a corner aiming to make me a mess on the floor, I'll sleep better at night knowing that I made a mess of him instead.

 

I'm just sayin'...

 

And I could be way off base on all of that. What I don't know would stun a team of oxen...

 

 

Our current bullet was designed to work out of both machineguns and 20" AR15A2 rifles. It was designed to punch through a helmet out to 300 yards IIRC. Essentially it's designed to be fired out of a rifle, and to be shot at modern soldiers in armor. Our soldiers are using it out of carbines at insurgents who are not wearing armor, but at < 40 yards it should still work correctly.

 

Do you really want to change the ammo for the current skirmishes? I think this bullet for what we are doing now would be much better than one which won't punch through armor if we end up w/ a full on war w/ a country like say, China. Whatever we use has to be cheap enough that Uncle Sam can buy 10s of millions of rounds for a decent price, and be able to get it in a timely manner.

[Kwicko 8]

Do you really want to change the ammo for the current skirmishes?

 

Not really. I wouldn't recommend changing over all of our ammo, but was trying to point out that maybe our guys should have some options available to them. They're the boots on the ground, so if they're saying our current ammo isn't getting the job done, I'd listen and try to get them something that will work better in their current situation.

 

I think this bullet for what we are doing now would be much better than one which won't punch through armor if we end up w/ a full on war w/ a country like say, China.

 

Which may indeed happen.

 

Whatever we use has to be cheap enough that Uncle Sam can buy 10s of millions of rounds for a decent price, and be able to get it in a timely manner.

 

...say, from China? (Just kidding)

 

I've always kind of wondered why our standard-issue military arms aren't chambered in 7.62x39mm... I mean, wherever we end up fighting, we can be pretty sure we'll be facing AKs. Using the same ammo would sure make it harder to run out in the middle of a firefight, and we could sure as hell get it cheaply and readily from numerous sources all over the world.

[dancapostagno 0]

ahhh...the magic bullet argument, arguably one of my favorite engineering arguments, but probably the most futile, given our mystifying obsession with fighting wars instead of fighting wars well.

 

anyways, of the "magic bullet" proposals, perhaps the most cost-effective one for the situation we are describing may be the 6.5MPC (not to be confused with the 6.5 Grendel, which is otherwise my vote for THE magic bullet.) The MPC is made by, in more or less words, stuffing a 6.5 bullet into a 5.56 NATO case with the neck blown-out somewhat. As i said, it isn't THE magic bullet, because proposals like the 6.8SPC and the 6.5Grendel work best at long rages as well as the short ones, and are proposals intended to fit into all applications that the 5.56 (and in some cases 7.62) NATO currently fill.

 

nonetheless, i think this design- much like the 7.62 Soviet- is good not because it is the best round, but is the best round for what we need right now. American armament spending, while easily more than most (if not all) countries on the planet, often presents itself as a "money is no object" crowd, but in reality -even for the richest nation on earth- it is not. This is why we design alot of flash stuff (under the money is no object budget) and then renig on buying it in the necessary quantity, if at all. The Soviets were clever in that they factored cost into the equation and this kept them more focused in their design. This is why the 7.62 Soviet is a round that can't reach out nearly as far as 5.56 NATO, because the Soviets decided that combat was only occurring within a certain distance, and designed a system to perform within that wheelhouse.

 

Ergo, I suggest that since (from what I've been able to read of the round) 6.5MPC only requires a barrel swap, and performs at "magic bullet" levels at close range out of short barrels [being more than fairly decent at long ranges too FYI,] we simply outfit the close-combat troops with 6.5MPC barrels on their M4's. That's it, no massive redesign contest. No magic bullet. No shotguns. Really no real massive purchases at all. Just a new barrel for SOME of the guys using ONE of the rifles we field and some bigger bullets. You don't even need new cases, we could use the ones we have.

[jhereg 0]

Not really. I wouldn't recommend changing over all of our ammo, but was trying to point out that maybe our guys should have some options available to them. They're the boots on the ground, so if they're saying our current ammo isn't getting the job done, I'd listen and try to get them something that will work better in their current situation.

 

A lot of the guys I know have been to the sandbox. Some of them were regular Army. Some of them are Special Forces of one type or another. Some of them worked for Blackwater. I haven't heard this complaint from them. I've heard one of them comment he preferred to carry his SAW over a M16, but that's shooting the same cartridge. What I've heard is that when you see the threat you shoot it, and you continue shooting it until it goes down. The bullets they have are decent. They are not perfect, but nothing ever is. I'd like them to have something better, but applies to all of their tools. Find something which won't mess up their supply system & make things worse. Something that's affordable, can be manufactured in the huge quantities required, and will get past the inertia of the top brass. Everybody always raves about the new wonder gun/ammo, but there is always some reason it doesn't get implemented. I think generally because it isn't that much better than what they already have when you factor in the huge cost of change.

 

In all honesty I'd say we're better off to make sure everyone has good optics suitable for their job, and make sure we budget enough money to ensure everyone gets enough range time w/ their weapons to be competent w/ them. Good shooting counts more than wonder bullets.

Edited June 2, 2008 by jhereg

[WHITE 3 GOLF 2]

Hey here's a thought, supply the military with what they need and give them the liberty to fight

the FUCKING war instead of sending them to be a police force in a war zone. Note that I said

"war zone" not peace keeping. This coming from an Iraq War Veteran.

 

FIRST TEAM