What is standard military weight for 5.56?

Besides, other armies do it too. The Soviet 5.45 round apparently has an airspace in the front. It doesn't expand at all, but it does supposedly help the round tumble, which is OK according to the legal experts.

let's hurt them, but not too badly!:)
 
greentips said:
It does not specifically prohibit hollow point, only design that enhances suffering.
Click to expand...

This is true. At the same time, designing for and usage of are two separate items.. like in the instance of using the .50cal Mk211 against 'soft' targets.

greentips said:
Fragmentation has more to do with jacket thickness(and material) and the profile of the bullet. It has nothing to do with closing the jacket at the tip end.
Click to expand...

This is also true, but the cavity does change the fragmentation characteristics as a side benefit, I didn't mean to imply that that was the purpose or best way to enhance fragmentation.
 
Fenix.NZ said:
NZ has recently changed to a heavier weight .. 80 something if i remember correctly, as the new A4 Steyrs have a faster twist

NZDF dumped a few million rounds of 55gr 5.56 into the civi market.. which was bought up by a single company and 75% of it shipped to the states
Click to expand...

Damn it!!!!

We want some too!!!!:D
 
So here's a question,
With the U.S. Going to a 77grain bullet for increased performance out of their 14'1/2" guns. What would be the max weight of a 556 round out of a 14"1/2 and a 20" gun before you lost the benefits of going heavier?...wow can't believe how poorly I wrote out that questions...hope you guys get it? I think I need more coffee!
 
eg23 said:
So here's a question,
With the U.S. Going to a 77grain bullet for increased performance out of their 14'1/2" guns. What would be the max weight of a 556 round out of a 14"1/2 and a 20" gun before you lost the benefits of going heavier?...wow can't believe how poorly I wrote out that questions...hope you guys get it? I think I need more coffee!
Click to expand...

It would depend on the rifling twist and magazine size. My Colt AR15A2 HBAR Sporter has a 1:7 twist barrel, and so should stabilize bullets up to about 90 gr.

The other issue is the magazine size. You can't load a 90 gr bullet to a depth that will allow it to seat in the magazine. The bullet is too long. Kinda useless to issue a round that won't fit in the mag.
 
Declaration III of the 1899 Hague Convention, states that: "The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions".

Boom. Inadvertant or not the hollow-point is covered here pretty obviously.
That pretty much ends the argument i would say? i mean okay the us say's it doesnt help with expanding or flattening but the 77gr otm has both things mentioned after "such as"
 
winnipegger said:
right but even though it is inadvertant my understanding of the geneva convention still does not allow a round that does more damage than necessary (really though what is "necesary" hahaha ). and you're saying it is just the thinner jacket that allows 77gr smk's to frag at 2200fps? i thought the frontal cavity played a big part in that
Click to expand...

The frontal cavity plays little to no part in the fragmentation, most of which comes from the bullet breaking in half at the cannelure after turning sideways. The reason that Mk262 is more effective even at reduced impact velocities is because it turns more quickly thus resulting in a much shorter wound "neck" and begins breaking up which causes a larger permanent crush cavity (more trauma and tissue damage, therefore better terminal results on "animated targets" - in this case best described as "malnourished Asians" - as per Doc Roberts, not my terminology).

Completely legit under Hague, even though Hague does not really apply to irregular combatants like those we are currently engaged in operations against...


cheers

blake
 
winnipegger said:
Declaration III of the 1899 Hague Convention, states that: "The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions".

Boom. Inadvertant or not the hollow-point is covered here pretty obviously.
That pretty much ends the argument i would say? i mean okay the us say's it doesnt help with expanding or flattening but the 77gr otm has both things mentioned after "such as"
Click to expand...

No it isn't and no it doesn't - the 77 SMK does neither (expand or flatten) - see my post above. It fragments. The only way to get bullets to cause more damage at the time that Hague was written was to make them of dead-soft lead so that they would flatten out or expand. Even the jacketed bullet as we now know it was in it's infancy and real development had not occurred as of yet.

Mk262 ended up being fielded because pallets of it was available at the outset of the conflict and it was a known quantity insofar as accuracy was concerned being the product of the competition world (AMU) adn it was destined for use by unconventional forces (SOF). The same folks who are now using Brown Tip optimized (70 gr Barnes TSX at 5.56 pressures for improved terminal performance out of SBR's like the Mk18 CQB-R and the like...

See also my comments regarding non-uniformed forces in conflict - Hague does not apply. We continue to play by rules that are non-applicable even when we have no obligation to do so.


Boom yourself...


Jesus loves you

blake
 
Obviously im not talking about the irregulars us canadians and the US is fighting. I'm simply discussing the theory behind the rules. I guess it really comes down to YOUR own interpretation of the rules. The u.s. agrees with you while most of the european nato countries agree with me. I suppose like most law it is based on interpretation.
While i dont think the law laid out in the hague are reasonable with regard to our current discussion (i think we should be able to use any bullet as we see fit in our military) but IMO it is pretty clearly written..... again My Opinion as i interpret it. theres no need to be a jerk.
 
winnipegger said:
Obviously im not talking about the irregulars us canadians and the US is fighting. I'm simply discussing the theory behind the rules. I guess 1. it really comes down to YOUR own interpretation of the rules. The u.s. agrees with you while 2. most of the european nato countries agree with me. I suppose like most law it is based on interpretation.
While i dont think the law laid out in the hague are reasonable with regard to our current discussion (i think we should be able to use any bullet as we see fit in our military) but IMO 3. it is pretty clearly written..... again My Opinion as i interpret it. 4. theres no need to be a jerk.
Click to expand...

1. No it doesn't - it comes down to the interpretation of the JAG which is based on some pretty significant technical representation;:cool: these guys get paid the big bucks (well, not compared to a civvie lawyer I guess) to make this sort of a call;

2. Some do, some don't - I believe that the Danes and Norwegians are using OTM in their SWS as well as some German units and (I may be mistaken here) the Brits. Lots of those European countries are a lot less open about what their guys re using than we are here and there are lots of things in use that you'll never know about - I guess when you hit somebody with a .338LM the hollow point makes little to no difference... :sniper:

3. Not really - you have to look at it in the context of the what was available at the time both by way of armaments and medical technology. Do you think that they were able to write this as it is presented not knowing yet bout FAE, napalm, landmines, bio/chem warfare and Claymores???;

4. I didn't think I was :confused: - and I think you started the sarcasm. Just sayin...;)

It's the Internet - don't take it so seriously...:dancingbanana:


blake
 
mudgunner49 said:
1. No it doesn't - it comes down to the interpretation of the JAG which is based on some pretty significant technical representation;:cool: these guys get paid the big bucks (well, not compared to a civvie lawyer I guess) to make this sort of a call;
Click to expand...

But they only work 830 to 430, and take off on Friday at 2! :D
 
winnipegger said:
Declaration III of the 1899 Hague Convention, states that: "The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions".

Boom. Inadvertant or not the hollow-point is covered here pretty obviously.
That pretty much ends the argument i would say? i mean okay the us say's it doesnt help with expanding or flattening but the 77gr otm has both things mentioned after "such as"
Click to expand...

OTM does not expand or flatten.
The Jacket DOES entirely cover the core (more so than any FMJ round I have seen in use).
The Jacket is NOT pierced in any way (it is a cup, would you describe a coffee cup or water bucket as being pierced?).
 
the boom was a joke dude! it's from the office.... Boom Roasted.... oh well. The last thing i'd really add to this is just because the Americans say it is so doesnt really make it fact for the rest of the world.... i guess your right about how much of an antique that document really is but at the same time was there not a landmine treaty the americans never signed? (i dont know about this one i heard it as a rumour)
 
winnipegger said:
the boom was a joke dude! it's from the office.... Boom Roasted.... oh well. The last thing i'd really add to this is just because the Americans say it is so doesnt really make it fact for the rest of the world.... i guess your right about how much of an antique that document really is but at the same time was there not a landmine treaty the americans never signed? (i dont know about this one i heard it as a rumour)
Click to expand...


Well I guess I totally missed the context of the "boom" - sorry 'bout that. Our own JAG has pretty much agreed across the board with the ruling on match ammo so not really an "American standing alone" thing - the Americans are just a lot more transparent about a lot of the stuff that they are doing in this regard than are some of the other nations. It's sure a good thing that Al Gore invented the Internet or we'd never have known about most of it...


blake
 
greentips said:
It does not specifically prohibit hollow point, only design that enhances suffering.

That's why JAG has a job - to make an interpretation of what it is enhancing suffering. Wether you agree or not is a different matter.
Click to expand...
As I recall, the U.S. never signed onto the Hague Convention regarding hollow points....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom