Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Saurdaukar on December 02, 2003, 10:57:50 AM
-
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2426405.php
Interesting stuff. Dont see how it can be 'legal' for combat usage though.
-
Amazing. That article doesn't reveal that much scientific data. I'd like to see an explanation for this:
The frangible APLP ammo will bore through steel and other hard targets but will not pass through a human torso, an eight-inch-thick block of artist’s clay or even several layers of drywall. Instead of passing through a body, it shatters, creating “untreatable wounds.”
[/size]
^ AND it works more effectively at higher temperatures (human flesh)? Ballistics rule.
Why not test it? Because of course, it interferes with projects and other contracts we already have in place... a money issue.
Some supporters of RBCD ammunition suggest SOCom officials may be reluctant to test the ammo because it threatens “in-house” weapons and ammunition programs underway at the command.
[/size]
And another question... who is this Ben Thomas guy and what was he doing in Iraq with an M4 and not in the service? Is he some sort of retired consultant?
-
Saur
You talking about the no dum dum **** in the geneva conventions?
That part is out dated I think and we should use the best ammo we can for our troops.
-
Saurdaukar: Interesting stuff. Dont see how it can be 'legal' for combat usage though.
Regular 5.56 ammo fragments into dozens of pieces at velocities above 2600fps - at distances below approximately 200 yards if shot from a 20-inch barrel. It leaves devastating wounds that are very hard or impossible to treat.
(http://www.ammo-oracle.com/images/wund5.jpg)
There is nothing illegal about US using any kind of bullets because it was never a party to any conventions limiting the bullet design.
see http://www.ammo-oracle.com
Octavius: That article doesn't reveal that much scientific data. I'd like to see an explanation for this:
While I am not familiar with this praticular round, I can explain how the standard round works. I believe the mechanism must be similar.
You see, the shape of a military bullet makes it aerodynamically unstable - it tends to turn rear-end forward in flight. The proper sping of a bullet counteracts that tendency in air.
As soon as the bullet enters some denser tissue, the spin is not sufficient to keep it stabilised and it flips over. If the speed is sufficient, at about 3-4 inches deep in human flesh when it is travelling sidewise, the stress becomes too great and it breaks appart into two pieces that further disintegrate.
Easy disintegration is helped by weak thin copper jacket, canellure and internal bullet design.
So a bullet can easily be able to penetrate 1/4 inches of steel but desintegrate within 5 inches of tissue or a drywall.
Hunting bullets are usually round-nosed and they have much less tendency to flip over. Also, the bullets with copper-washed steel jacket or without canellure may not fragment as readily as the standard mill-spec rounds.
GtoRA2: That part is out dated I think and we should use the best ammo we can for our troops.
At some point the bad guys will start using the same ammo that we do instead of clean prenetrating AK-47 rounds. At that point our statistics of 1 dead per 100 wounded will get much worse.
miko
-
Do you actually believe yourself? Just wondering.
-
Creamo
Who are you talking to?
-
Captain Analytical of course.
Boredom powers activate! Form of a 4 paragraph line of opinion stated as if fact.
-
Another example of THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!! :rolleyes:
-
And another question... who is this Ben Thomas guy and what was he doing in Iraq with an M4 and not in the service? Is he some sort of retired consultant?
You might say that. My best guess is that he is what is commonly called on CNN these days as a "CIA Contract Employee" or "CIA Paramilitary Personnel". Usually these guys are ex-special forces working for the CIA but are officially employed by a third party company.
-
LOL these guys are civilians traveling around Iraq like its a safari.
Granted, they may be attacking hostile Iraquies, but its still a little odd.
How does the .gov allow for armed american civilians to roam around a hot battelground?
-edit-
Verm may have answered my question, but its still a little wacky.
-
M855 (SS-109) is a 62 grain 5.56 bullet.
It differs from M193 55 grain bullet by being longer, less stable and having a "compound" core, with a lead base topped by a steel penetrator.
This bullet requires faster rifling twist to be properly stabilized - at least 1 in 9.
the SS-109 bullet was proven to have better penetration of the then-current-issue steel helmet at 600m than the M80 "ball" ammo fired by the M60. The M80 ammo was not able to penetrate both sides of the helmet at that distance; the SS-109 bullet could.
Obviously, if there was a head inside the helmet, the bullet would have flipped and desintegrated inside the brain and not penetrated the rear side of the helmet.
So if you shoot M855 through two metal plates separated by 12 inches, it will likely punch through both of them.
If you shoot it lengthwise through a milk carton filled with meat, only tiny pieces will come out of the rear end that will have very little further penetration.
miko
-
Another term for these guys is OGA - Other Government Agency. Some of them are working for the CIA and others are providing security for US civilian agencies who have people in Iraq. Good to hear they are kicking some ass. Nice shot man.
-
Hunting bullets are usually round-nosed and they have much less tendency to flip over.
almost all hunting rounds use either spire of semi-spire point bullets.
round-nose are ussually just used for rifles with tubular magazines (like most 30-30's), not for any sort of advantage but because loading spire-point bullets in a tubular magazine will get you killed or at least hurting.
-
True. I should have said "some hunting rounds and older military ammunition". I am much more fluent in military ammo than in hunting firearms.
The advantage of the round-nosed bullets is increased stability, which requires less radical spin, more tolerance for different bullet weights, sizes and loads. Also less wear and stress on the barrel.
miko
-
hmmm...I always thought it was better to wound than kill.
Just for the simple reason that by wounding you have taken 2 out of the fight (one to look after the wounded).
However, in this day and age of conflict, it rarely seems to be an issue as the battlefield is hard to define, and the enemy doesn't always seem to conform to what used to be typical warfare practices. (IE caring for the wounded).
RTR
-
Just remember that if you're issued with such bullets, you may also expect your enemy to do the same.
-
I dont think our enemies would think twice about using such ammo, if they had access to it.
-
Originally posted by Animal
I dont think our enemies would think twice about using such ammo, if they had access to it.
They could easily make dum-dums and prolly get some explosive bullets..
-
Originally posted by Fishu
They could easily make dum-dums and prolly get some explosive bullets..
I'm sure they are delaying doing so for humanitarian reasons. :rolleyes:
-
RTR: I always thought it was better to wound than kill.
Modern infantry combat (for which the weapons and ammo in question are designed) happens at rather short distances - below 300 yards and often below 50 yards.
The 5.56 bullet that does not desintregrate leaves a neat clean hole which usually closes due to natural elasticity of the tissue.
Unless a vital nerve center or joint is hit, even a mortal wound may not be severe enough to disable the victim quickly and prevent him from hurting you.
If the enemy is under influence of alcohol, drugs or even under adrenaline rush, he/she may not even notice being hit for a considerable (in combat) time.
There is an instructive description of using AP ammo from a short-barreled variant of M16 in "The Black Hawk Down" by Mark Bowden. Somalis hit with multiple rounds just ignored them for a while.
miko
-
This site has a video talking about the new rounds. In the video a hunk of roast just explodes when hit by one of these rounds.
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/bullets/ (http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/bullets/)
-
Originally posted by miko2d
There is an instructive description of using AP ammo from a short-barreled variant of M16 in "The Black Hawk Down" by Mark Bowden. Somalis hit with multiple rounds just ignored them for a while.
miko
Yeah, I remember that part of the book.
Soldiers described it as if the bullets just went thru the somalies, and they just kept fighting. Thats why some deltas used M14 rifles.
-
Thanks makarov! Thats exactly the explanation I was looking for.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I'm sure they are delaying doing so for humanitarian reasons. :rolleyes:
Must have something to do with typical ammo being the cheapest and dum-dums having rather poor penetration capability (plus who would want to do dum-dums worth a thousand rounds)
-
AK-74 5.45x39 round tumbles even more readily than 5.56x45 round - due to the air-filled tip, that shifts the CG even further back and allows the core to move after the impact - but it does not fragment due to low energy and strong jacket (copper-washed steel often used instead of expensive copper).
A hit to the extremity is likely to be more destructive because the bullet yaws/tumbles within as little as 1-2 inches and may change direction unpredictably.
A hit to the body would be less devastating compared to the NATO round. It will leave a long narrow twisting hole where a 5.56 round would leave half a gallon of shredded tissue - in chich case blood vessels are more likely to be hit and internal bleeding more difficult to stop.
The added accuracy of AK-47 compared to AK-47 is mostly due to much lower recoil. It actually allows tight grouping with auto fire burst.
miko
-
Originally posted by Animal
I dont think our enemies would think twice about using such ammo, if they had access to it.
Peurto Rico has a lot of enemies? If so, I hope you get Milko to build you some prettythang-kicking bullets to kill them!:aok