5.56mm MK318 mod 0

[General Lee]

I was researching after reading Tactical Shooting (a very good sumplement, im my view, I recomend it) and trying to grasp what is a BB round, or Barrier Blind. After some time, I get it. But, one question turns up: Are Open Tip rounds considered Hollow Point rounds, GURPS-wise?

In Tactical Shooting (p. 79), descriptions of basic loads are offered. I noticed that under FBI and LAPD Officers, the ammunition of the Rifles (RRA LAR-15 and M-16, respectively) are HP-BB rounds. Some cross-checking done and I get that the type in question is a 5.56mm OTM (Open Tip Match).

I also read that Open Tip Match rounds are comonly used by snipers and Special Ops units, and, now, by the USMC as the Mk318 mod0. Better ballistics notwithstanding, I read that an Army JAG called for all snipers to stop using OTM rounds due Geneva Convention infraction, but the services made the point that OTM is not the same as Hollow Point, because do not have a expanding characteristic, I`m flumoxed!!! Could someone explain that?

[Rob Crawford]

Some quick research shows that OTM rounds have a "space" at the tip as a result of the way they're made, but that "space" doesn't have the expanding effect of a true hollow point.

I'd treat an OTM round as a standard ("ball") round.

[pieclone]

Fwiw it's the Hague Convention rather than the Geneva Convention that bans "exploding" rounds or those designed to aggravate wounds iirc. I'd say if it's type classified then it's legal and frankly I'm rather surprised to see someone complaining after the fact.

I am unaware of any serving military personnel being prosecuted as a result of specific ammunition having been used at any point over the last decade although I seem to remember some PMC fellows in Iraq using "unauthorised" ammunition (possibly Black Talon) during one firefight. With PMCs being effectively immune to prosecution however, this came to naught.

On topic - TS indicates -BB are available for both Solid and HP with a minimum of 3d Dmg (p.77).

[DouglasCole]

My impression, and reasonable people can differ on this, is that the JAG did a LOT of tap dancing to avoid calling the OTM rounds hollow-point . . . though some of the wounding potential, enhanced penetration, etc was starting to look pretty interesting. I seem to recall stuff like "well, it wasn't DESIGNED to open, like a hollow point, it just HAPPENS to expand a bit, so it's OK . . ."

Frankly, even if it is a HP round, I wouldn't care, conventions or no, but I was amused by the legalistic wriggling.

[General Lee]

Originally Posted by pieclone

Fwiw it's the Hague Convention rather than the Geneva Convention that bans "exploding" rounds or those designed to aggravate wounds iirc. I'd say if it's type classified then it's legal and frankly I'm rather surprised to see someone complaining after the fact.

I commonly make this mistake, sorry. I`m not complaining about that, only some guidance to classify real rounds for GURPS.

Originally Posted by pieclone

I am unaware of any serving military personnel being prosecuted as a result of specific ammunition having been used at any point over the last decade although I seem to remember some PMC fellows in Iraq using "unauthorised" ammunition (possibly Black Talon) during one firefight. With PMCs being effectively immune to prosecution however, this came to naught.

IRC, I read a book by Jeremy Scahill about Blackwater, now XE, that accounts the use of "explosive" rounds like bimetallic rounds, but it`s only represent how myopiotic is the Hague Convention limiting the regular armies and giving free choice for mercenaries.

Originally Posted by pieclone

On topic - TS indicates -BB are available for both Solid and HP with a minimum of 3d Dmg (p.77).

I already noticed that. Just want to differentiate one from another. Apparently, Mk318 mod 0 is a solid BB round, but want to make sure, and gather examples of other solid BB rounds and HP-BB rounds. Some are explicit like HPBT, Hollow Point Boat Tail, rounds.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Frankly, even if it is a HP round, I wouldn't care, conventions or no, but I was amused by the legalistic wriggling.

I totally agree with you, conventions apart, if you could aim a air-to-ground missile like a Maverick in a motorcycle - and the riders, consequentialy - in order to avoid "collateral" damage, why not allow expanding bullets? LE Agencies already could and there is nothing unhuman in that.

[General Lee]

Originally Posted by Rob Crawford

Some quick research shows that OTM rounds have a "space" at the tip as a result of the way they're made, but that "space" doesn't have the expanding effect of a true hollow point.

I'd treat an OTM round as a standard ("ball") round.

So OTM could justify a +1 for better accuracy, just like Match? Or, don`t have an edge enough to justify such bonus or other treatment.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by General Lee

So OTM could justify a +1 for better accuracy, just like Match?

Increased accuracy was the justification I've seen for adoption.

On the Hague Convention:
It's really simply obsolete and has been for a very long time. Almost every armed service in the world violates the letter of it simply by using flares and smoke munitions.

[lexington]

Originally Posted by General Lee

only some guidance to classify real rounds for GURPS.

According to The Firearm Blog a simple way to tell the difference may be to look it the round is described as open tip (like the Mk. 317) or hollow point. Treat "open tip" as solid.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...-0-ammunition/

Originally Posted by General Lee

IRC, I read a book by Jeremy Scahill about Blackwater, now XE, that accounts the use of "explosive" rounds like bimetallic rounds, but it`s only represent how myopiotic is the Hague Convention limiting the regular armies and giving free choice for mercenaries.

All the standard NATO rifle bullets are bimetallic and designed to "explode" (the usual term is fragment, because it's less confusing) inside the target.

Originally Posted by General Lee

I totally agree with you, conventions apart, if you could aim a air-to-ground missile like a Maverick in a motorcycle - and the riders, consequentialy - in order to avoid "collateral" damage, why not allow expanding bullets? LE Agencies already could and there is nothing unhuman (I don`t know if is spelled right, but...) in that.

I doubt that people in 1899 were thinking about guided anti-tank weapons being fired at personnel. It's an artifact of that era which has stayed around mostly because armies don't currently have much use for hollow points or soft points. If you take it seriously they violate it constantly. The design of rifle bullets is to break up, which is exactly the kind of thing the spirit of the convention would prohibit.

[Sam Cade]

Originally Posted by pieclone

I am unaware of any serving military personnel being prosecuted as a result of specific ammunition having been used at any point over the last decade although I seem to remember some PMC fellows in Iraq using "unauthorised" ammunition (possibly Black Talon) during one firefight.

Zero possibility of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Talon

[pieclone]

General Lee - I wasn't having a go at you, don't worry! It was more the JAG fellow complaining about the adoption of the ammo after type classification.

You're right Sam - Black Talon was off the market before they were over there. On Googling it was Black Hills Mk 262 Mod 0 ammo that they were buying in spades. That would just have been certain parts of the media having a hissy fit over "non-standard" ammo.

I do recall that some chaps in special operations were complaining at the time that they couldn't get hold of much of the ammo as the PMC fellows had snapped it all up.