Except for a few nomenclature errors, this is a good story from the AP:
US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war -- -- Newsday.com
US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war -- -- Newsday.com
IIRC, highly variable results. Failures to Fire/Failures to Feed, as a result of the solid propellant reacting with environmental exposure and various chemicals. Neat idea; awaiting further advances.Whatever happened to some of the truly innovative weapon designs like the H&K G11 (HKPRO:* The G11). I remember seeing some soldiers in Europe with it in the 80s and it seemed to work ok, even though it looks UGLY.
Rules of war limit the type of ammunition conventional military units can shoot. The Hague Convention of 1899 bars hollow point bullets that expand in the body and cause injuries that someone is less likely to survive. The United States was not a party to that agreement. Yet, as most countries do, it adheres to the treaty, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Since when have we considered 20% a majority?In 2006, the Army asked a private research organization to survey 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly one-fifth of those who used the M4 and M16 rifles wanted larger caliber bullets.
....."5.56 Optimized" and/or "Brown Tip", because the round has, appropriately, a brown tip.
The "optimized" nomenclature apparently refers to the fact that the round is optimized for subcarbines/SBRs (Short Barreled Rifles) and carbines from 10.5-14.5 inches, in order to provide optimum terminal ballistics out of the shortened weapon platform. We don't know the maximum effective combat distance for the round out of a 10.3"-10.5" barrel, but we're guessing approx. 300-350 yards (unconfirmed/unverified).....
......Defense Review does not have all the facts about this ammo, yet, but we've been informed by one of our sources that the new round (the bullet, itself), rumored to be manufactured by [Redacted], is made of [Redacted] ([Redacted], all the way through) and weighs 70 grains, as opposed to the 62-grain M855 ball round. It's possible that the 5.56 Optimized/Brown-Tip bullet is a militarized offshoot of, and therefore benefits from, [Redacted] bullet a.k.a. [Redacted] bullet technology. However, we're not yet sure whether the 5.56 Optimized round is round nose a.k.a. solid point, open-tip, or hollow point. The limited information we have at present would lead us to believe that it's a solid-tip round, but we're not sure yet.
That's providing the right tool to match the task.This isn't news. It's the same old song and dance that has been going on for years. For close in urban fighting the .30 carbine may be just the ticket but then you get a situation where the troops are shooting across valleys (Afghanistan) or engaging bad guys out in the open desert at 300 yards and the press will be whining about the .30 carbines inadequacies. I guess what they want is for us to stockpile three different rifles and three different calibers of ammo for each soldier.
DocGKR said:5.56 mm NATO 62 gr SS-109/M855 FMJ was designed over 30 years ago as linked machine gun ammunition to be fired from the FN Minimi/M249 SAW while engaging enemy troops wearing light body armor during conventional infantry combat at distances of several hundred meters--while not a perfect solution, M855 does perform adequately in this role.
Unfortunately, combat operations since late 2001 have again highlighted terminal performance problems, generally manifested as failures to rapidly incapacitate opponents, during combat engagements when M855 62 gr “Green Tip” FMJ is fired from 5.56 mm rifles and carbines. This is not surprising, since M855 was not originally intended for use in carbines or rifles, especially those with short barrels. In addition, most current issue 5.56 mm bullets are generally less effective when intermediate barriers, such as walls, glass, and vehicles shield opponents--this is a significant consideration in urban combat.
As an interim solution to these problems, deployed SOF units have used 5.56 mm Mk262. The Black Hills produced Mk262 uses the 77 gr Sierra Match King (SMK) OTM and is built as premium quality ammunition intended for precise long-range semi-auto rifle shots from the Mk12 rifle. It is great for its intended purpose. Mk262 has demonstrated improved accuracy, greater effective range, and more consistent performance at all distances compared to M855 when fired from current M16, Mk12, M4, HK416, and Mk18 rifles and carbines. However, despite this substantially improved performance, Mk262 still manifests the problems of poor intermediate barrier penetration and somewhat variable terminal performance inherent with the SMK design.
The disturbing failure of 5.56 mm to consistently offer adequate incapacitation has been known for nearly 15 years. Dr. Fackler’s seminal work at the Letterman Army Institute of Research Wound Ballistic Laboratory during the 1980’s illuminated the yaw and fragmentation mechanism by which 5.56 mm FMJ bullets create wounds in tissue. If 5.56 mm bullets fail to upset (yaw, fragment, or deform) within tissue, the results are relatively insignificant wounds, similar to those produced by .22 LR--this is true for ALL 5.56 mm bullets, including military FMJ , OTM, and AP, as well as JHP and JSP designs used in LE. This failure of 5.56 mm bullets to upset can be caused by reduced impact velocities when hitting targets at longer ranges, as well as by the decreased muzzle velocity when using short barrel carbines. Failure to upset can also occur when bullets pass through minimal tissue, such as a limb or the torso of a thin, small statured individual, as the bullet may exit the body before it has a chance to upset. Finally, bullet design and construction plays a major role in reliable bullet upset. Without consistent bullet upset, wounding effects are decreased, rapid incapacitation is unlikely, and enemy combatants may continue to pose a threat to friendly forces and innocent civilians.
Angle-of-Attack (AOA) variations between different projectiles, even within the same lot of ammo, as well as Fleet Yaw variations between different rifles, were recently elucidated by the JSWB-IPT. These yaw issues were most noticeable at close ranges and were more prevalent with certain calibers and bullet styles—the most susceptible being 5.56 mm FMJ ammunition like M855 and M193. What this means is that two shooters firing the same lot of M855 from their M4’s with identical shot placement can have dramatically different terminal performance results: one shooter states that his M855 is working great and is effective at dropping bad guys, while the other complains his opponents are not being incapacitated because M855 is zipping right through the targets without upsetting. Both shooters are telling the truth…
As articulated by combat AAR’s the last few years and demonstrated in recent military wound ballistic testing, improved combat ammunition that is specifically designed for rifle and carbine use, not machine guns, is urgently needed. New loads should offer:
-- JAG approval
-- Full reliability in diverse environmental extremes
-- A thermally stable propellant
-- Consistent lot-to-lot and shot-to-shot performance, even when fired from short barrel weapons
-- Crimped and sealed primer
-- Sealed case mouth
-- Cannelure for functional reliability in adverse conditions
-- Decreased muzzle flash
-- Acceptable accuracy at 300-500m
-- Good soft tissue terminal performance (early consistent bullet upset within 1 or 2 inches of initial tissue penetration)
-- 12-18 inches of penetration coupled with maximized tissue damage during the first 10 to 12 inches of travel in tissue
-- Designed to minimize AOA and fleet yaw issues
-- Blind to Barriers
It is critical that new combat ammunition be “Blind to Barriers” and not suffer from terminal performance degradation from intermediate barriers--especially automobile windshields & doors, and common structural walls. The 01 June 2006 Marine Corps RFI for “Barrier Blind” ammo yielded several good options from industry.
Restricting M855 for what is was designed for--use in the SAW and simply adopting new 5.56 mm barrier blind combat loads that are optimized for carbines with shorter barrels, offer consistent early upset, along with adequate penetration, and minimal AOA/Fleet yaw issues may be the critical answer to many deficiencies noted with currently issued U.S. military 5.56 mm ammunition.
I'd always thought it was a two-fer. They viewed 'Nam as a learning opportunity and did, discovering several benefits to the smaller rounds (which included being able to carry as much ammunition as our guys did). In their subsequent armed conflicts (not the least of which included the failed invasion of Afghanistan), the round performed well.The soviets didn't copy 5.56 for ballistic reasons...they copied it because they wanted their guys to carry as much ammo as ours did.