Originally Posted by stanc
Reply With QuoteHmmm, seems like a lot of M118LR, M852, Mk262, Mk316, Mk248, etc... is being shot downrange at bad guys by folks wearing U.S. Army uniforms."The so-called "OTM" (i.e., Sierra MatchKing) has seen only limited use by the Army"
Browntip continues in use by those who need it while being more accurate, less expensive, just as lead free (as specious as that argument may be), and better against intermediate barriers like auto vehicle windshields than M855A1.
The ARDEC Caliber Study in fact compared the terminal performance of identically constructed projectiles in diameters from .224 to .308, using both all copper construction like the TSX and the exposed steel penetrator style like M855A1/M80A1. The .277 diameter projectiles offered the optimal performance characteristics."Plus, there is no public data on gel tests conducted with M855A1-type bullets in 6.8 SPC, or if in fact, any were ever even built and tested."
As I have repeatedly stated, it is time to retire conventional FMJ ammo or just restrict its use to training purposes. Any organization or nation that clings to FMJ ammunition as a battlefield cartridge does not truly care about their troops or non-combatants on the modern battlefield with its close intermixing of innocent civilians bystanders and irregular combatants. Traditional FMJ is much more likely to exit opponents and potentially inflict damage to civilians who are downrange, FMJ is much less likely to effectively incapacitate an enemy who has been hit with a non-CNS wound--thus necessitating further shots and a higher likelihood of death for the opponent, FMJ is generally less accurate than OTM and other newer designs--thus posing a greater risk of missing the engaged enemy and possibly hitting innocent civilians downrange. Keep in mind that ANY projectile which fragments, by definition, must deform/flatten/expand, prior to fragmenting--this includes FMJ projectiles like M855, M193, and M80. Even the "kinder, gentler" non-fragmenting British 5.56mm L2A2 is technically "expanding" ammunition if we really wanted to be sticklers to the Hague Convention, as it flattens pretty much on every shot as demonstrated by Luke Haag's investigations several years ago. The antiquated Hague Convention ammunition protocols are utter illogical balderdash that need to be abandoned.
Procurement folks should just specify the projectile performance requirements they desire and let the engineers build the projectile to those parameters rather than dictating specific projectile types. The description of an ideal duty rifle load as recently described at several USG conferences is just about perfect:
-- Penetration of 12 to 18 inches
-- No impact AOA induced variations
-- Blind to barriers
-- No deviation from shot line after impact
-- Minimal fragmentation
-- Consistent terminal performance from 0 – 300 meters
-- Sufficient accuracy to hit threat targets out to 600 meters
Oh...while we are at it, the term "Lethality" should be banned, as that is NOT what is needed with a combat cartridge; rapid incapacitation is truly what is required, just like what is necessary with modern LE ammunition.
