5.56mm MK318 mod 0

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Sam Cade

Zero possibility of that.

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

Originally Posted by pieclone

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.

Are you sure those references weren't meant about the 9mm 147 grain Ranger SXTs, and the 45 230 grain Ranger SXTs?

http://www.xd-hs2000.com/images/rangerammo.gif

They were all just regular LEO loads 5-6 years ago, I think the 230 grain is still commonly used, but I don't think the 9mm is very popular at all anymore...

(I'm not a gun bunny, Sam'd know best.)

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by lexington

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.

It would be more accurate to say that they aren't specifically designed to not fragment. Any bullet will fragment if the stresses on the bullet from passing through flesh exceed the material strength of the bullet, and lead isn't very strong, so jacketed lead projectiles hitting at high velocities tend to break apart. Modern NATO M855 rounds fragment less than regular civilian .223 ammo, because it's a heavier and slower bullet.

[pieclone]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Are you sure those references weren't meant about the 9mm 147 grain Ranger SXTs, and the 45 230 grain Ranger SXTs?

http://www.xd-hs2000.com/images/rangerammo.gif

They were all just regular LEO loads 5-6 years ago, I think the 230 grain is still commonly used, but I don't think the 9mm is very popular at all anymore...

(I'm not a gun bunny, Sam'd know best.)

It was longarm ammo that was under the microscope in the article I'd read (that should have tipped me off that it wasn't Black Talon). I am such a biff sometimes.

[General Lee]

Originally Posted by lexington

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/.

So, OTM oly imply that certain bullet is solid with better stability? Something that system granularity could get?

Originally Posted by lexington

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.

Sorry, I didn`t describe correctly. IRC, the book describes a comercial bullet that boasts better fragmentation through use of new materials, not just lead and copper. I think someone commented about it in one of the threads. Actually, someone said that TRUE bimetallic rounds, as envisage by the round maker, is only matter of studies.

Originally Posted by lexington

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.

So, why abide the law then...I concur when someone brings issues about napalm, bomblets and land mines, but small arms ammunition...simply don`t make sense. Actually, today issue is about collateral damage for civilians and permanent negation of use of land (as achieved by land mines and UXO).

[lexington]

Originally Posted by General Lee

So, OTM oly imply that certain bullet is solid with better stability? Something that system granularity could get?

Yeah, just call it match grade or barrier blind. I think the Mk318 is would be barrier blind and solid. An OTM for a snipers weapon is more likely to be treated by the rules as match grade and solid.

Originally Posted by General Lee

Sorry, I didn`t describe correctly. IRC, the book describes a comercial bullet that boasts better fragmentation through use of new materials, not just lead and copper. I think someone commented about it in one of the threads. Actually, someone said that TRUE bimetallic rounds, as envisage by the round maker, is only matter of studies.

Ah, interesting. The new M855A1 is supposed to fragment well even though its solid steel.

Originally Posted by General Lee

So, why abide the law then...I concur when someone brings issues about napalm, bomblets and land mines, but small arms ammunition...simply don`t make sense. Actually, today issue is about collateral damage for civilians and permanent negation of use of land (as achieved by land mines and UXO).

Militaries abide by the law because if you actually come out and say that you're not "following the rules" anymore it would be a PR disaster. If it presented a huge advantage the Hague Convention would be quickly swept away.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by General Lee

Actually, someone said that TRUE bimetallic rounds, as envisage by the round maker, is only matter of studies.

Far as I know 'bimetallic' rounds are just marketing-speak to get people to overpay for bullets; pretty much no exotic expanding bullet significantly outperforms hollowpoint.

[Sam Cade]

Originally Posted by lexington

An OTM for a snipers weapon is more likely to be treated by the rules as match grade and solid.

Internal ballistics are funny. Sometimes a 168gr Matchking acts like a FMJ, sometimes they come apart violently. *shrug*




Yeow.
http://home.comcast.net/~gocartmozar...nch_barrel.jpg

Originally Posted by lexington

Ah, interesting. The new M855A1 is supposed to fragment well even though its solid steel.

It isnt solid steel...or even mostly steel.

http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/m855a102.jpg

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Sam Cade

It isnt solid steel...or even mostly steel.

http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/m855a102.jpg

Image is kind of out of date, since I understand the bismuth-tin caused problems and has been replaced with copper. It's still quite a lot of steel in the bullet. And, most likely, is prone to fragmenting along the line where the metal type shifts, though that's surely a purely accidental side effect, and not in any way, shape, or form an attempt to improve fragmentation behavior in soft targets.

[Sam Cade]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Image is kind of out of date, since I understand the bismuth-tin caused problems and has been replaced with copper.

You are correct, I didn't look at my own link. :-)

All about the new pills:

http://www.aschq.army.mil/ac/aais/io...2137343750.pdf

-Provides improved, consistent effects against soft targets and CQB performance
-Significantly increases range of consistent effects against soft targets

[lexington]

Originally Posted by Sam Cade

It isnt solid steel...or even mostly steel.

http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/m855a102.jpg

I must have seen picture of it without the jacket and assumed that was the whole thing.