627PCFan
Member
new idea while we are at it, hevi-shot for terrorists and insurgents. Its ok, its only taxpayer money 
Army's Proposed New M855A1 to Use Solid Copper Bullet
- Thread starter Shawn Dodson
- Start date
- Status
Totally irrelevant, unless the Army has decided to abandon ball ammo. Barnes work because they expand very reliably. Ball ammo doesn't. They also foul barrels more than gilding metal ("copper-jacketed" bullets aren't really jacketed with pure copper, but a harder alloy).
Marginal velocity improvements don't replace bullet weight, either.
Very relevant, the Army had JAG vet the use of hollowpoint ammo, which is now issued and in use overseas. That's a long lead item, yes, it all happened last year. Also the very relevant key point I made - it has to be aerodynamically designed, not expansion related.
Marginal velocity improvements are also relevant if you can get another 100 fps. It may be 1/26th of an improvement, but in ballistics that can relate to another 50 yards effective range for a bullet with decent BC.
Logistics also has a huge influence on Army thinking. Lake City is running 24/7/365 right now trying to keep up with 5.56. Until a new bullet offers a whole bunch of improvement, there's no reason to shut down each line and convert it right in the middle of high demand. The Germans had the same problem developing the first assault rifle round and kept the 8mm despite knowing a caliber change would deliver better results. Changing a few million rifles just wasn't going to happen on the verge of conquering Europe. Bad timing.
I suspect as things wind down overseas then the Army will finalize some thinking when it won't disrupt the logistics train. Then we will once again be equipped to fight the last war.
Marginal velocity improvements are also relevant if you can get another 100 fps. It may be 1/26th of an improvement, but in ballistics that can relate to another 50 yards effective range for a bullet with decent BC.
Logistics also has a huge influence on Army thinking. Lake City is running 24/7/365 right now trying to keep up with 5.56. Until a new bullet offers a whole bunch of improvement, there's no reason to shut down each line and convert it right in the middle of high demand. The Germans had the same problem developing the first assault rifle round and kept the 8mm despite knowing a caliber change would deliver better results. Changing a few million rifles just wasn't going to happen on the verge of conquering Europe. Bad timing.
I suspect as things wind down overseas then the Army will finalize some thinking when it won't disrupt the logistics train. Then we will once again be equipped to fight the last war.
So HP match-style bullets would be okay. The thing is, Barnes are designed for expansion. Did JAG say how you could determine what the bullet design was good for?
Right. And you take away more than that with a lighter bullet, which, if the same shape and size, has a lower BC.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
The thing is, when you reduce the bullet density, you reduce the ballistic coefficient. So your lighter bullet going faster may perform better at close range (which isn't really the problem with current M855) but is going to perform worse at long range because it will lose velocity faster, and the longer ranges are already M855's weak point.
If you make the bullet longer, to try to gain back the ballistic coefficient you lost when you went to the lighter material, you lose case capacity compared to the same-weight bullet in a denser material.
It was. But the military wanted more performance at range than the lighter FMJ's would allow, particularly out of 14.5" barrels, hence the move toward heavier bullets with better BC's. The military is expecting more out of 5.56 now than it did in 1961.
Expanding bullets aren't an option for military use, per the Hague convention, hence the dependency on fragmentation for terminal effect (OTM's are OK because they act like FMJ, not ordinary JHP). You can make a suitably profiled all-copper HP round expand, but a solid copper round is just not going to fragment as easily as a lead-core round. It is less of an issue with civilian JHP, as you point out, but it is the military that is talking about going to copper solids.
The reason M855 was developed in the first place was to try to give 5.56x45 more performance at range, which it probably did out of 20" barrels. Most of the current complaints about 5.56 effectiveness relate to the bullet's inability to fragment beyond a certain range out of 14.5" barrels, and going to a copper solid is going to cause that same problem in close as well, IMO.
The best-performing 5.56x45 bullets at range currently seem to be the 77-grain lead-core OTM's; the same bullet profile in copper would
SpeedAKL
Member
The logistics problem wouldn't be nearly as big if Clinton had not shut down 4 of the 5 ammunition plans and left only Lake City open. Not to get too political, but that administration screwed up almost every aspect of military policy it got its dirty hands on.
It's articles like this that cement things for me. If either of my sons express a desire to be a ground pounder I'm steering them towards the Corps. At least the Marines haven't lost sight of Job #1 in the military--killing the enemy.
Glock Glockler
Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBbJhv39IUM
Shawn, I think those concerns are way overblown, this guy seems to change mags just fine. Also, suppose you are correct in that the bullpup reload is slower, the bullpup is going to send bullets quicker given the same barrel length and will likely result in more/quicker enemy dead.
At that point one would have to determine if the tradeoff was worth it.
Shawn, I think those concerns are way overblown, this guy seems to change mags just fine. Also, suppose you are correct in that the bullpup reload is slower, the bullpup is going to send bullets quicker given the same barrel length and will likely result in more/quicker enemy dead.
At that point one would have to determine if the tradeoff was worth it.
hub
Member
Probably would have been cheaper to just go ahead and make them out of gold!!! lol
Hardtarget
Member
So...WWI and WWII dumped how many tons of rifle bullets ALL OVER EUROPE...are people just dropping dead over there?
Are they worrying about nothing? When did the army get taken over by a bunch of tree huggers?
I'm just asking...
Mark
Are they worrying about nothing? When did the army get taken over by a bunch of tree huggers?
I'm just asking...
Mark
OP
OP
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,195
The video illustrates a best case situation. He's not wearing armor, he's not wearing web gear, his shooting position doesn't compromise his ability to manipulate the weapon.
W L Johnson
Member
I may be getting paranoid as I get older, but I can't help but connect this with the fact the Chinese have been buying up copper mines like crazy lately.
Don't quote Geneva/Hague - JAG made the decision, JAG said hollow points designed for aerodynamic purposed are legal. "Expansion" bullets aren't the issue, "dum-dums' were. ALL bullets expand, what the convention was attempting to (stupidly) regulate were big, slow, rounds deliberately designed to open up and create difficult wounds that 1900's medical treatment couldn't adequately repair. IIRC, did we sign anything?
Again, they are already issue in Afghanistan.
Don't lose sight of the fact that in war, one side is trying to kill the other dead. The convention was simply (simple-mindedly) trying to reduce the survivor's suffering.
As for the loss of ballistic coefficient and potential of long range lethality, our present caliber doesn't have that as a strong point - especially when fired out of 16" carbines it wasn't designed for. It wasn't as much a problem from the longer M16 barrels. It's not a major problem for the Army, as their solution is to use .308, not design a one-bullet-fits all concept.
I read a lot of objection to change not based on the specific operating environment as the ARMY sees it, and that is who will make the decision. Like the M16 itself, adoption will probably have a lot of naysayers, but those guys don't hold the records anymore, even in long distance precision shooting. Large caliber operating rod guns aren't more accurate.
Perhaps looking at if from the point of how this WILL work could bring up some advantages clouded by an adverse perspective. It's already a proven gamegetter in Hornady and Barnes loads. It's just being developed in the Army's typically slow fashion before being type approved and used. Might be the only rounds available in ten years from the military loaders on the market.
Again, they are already issue in Afghanistan.
Don't lose sight of the fact that in war, one side is trying to kill the other dead. The convention was simply (simple-mindedly) trying to reduce the survivor's suffering.
As for the loss of ballistic coefficient and potential of long range lethality, our present caliber doesn't have that as a strong point - especially when fired out of 16" carbines it wasn't designed for. It wasn't as much a problem from the longer M16 barrels. It's not a major problem for the Army, as their solution is to use .308, not design a one-bullet-fits all concept.
I read a lot of objection to change not based on the specific operating environment as the ARMY sees it, and that is who will make the decision. Like the M16 itself, adoption will probably have a lot of naysayers, but those guys don't hold the records anymore, even in long distance precision shooting. Large caliber operating rod guns aren't more accurate.
Perhaps looking at if from the point of how this WILL work could bring up some advantages clouded by an adverse perspective. It's already a proven gamegetter in Hornady and Barnes loads. It's just being developed in the Army's typically slow fashion before being type approved and used. Might be the only rounds available in ten years from the military loaders on the market.
No kidding. Which has what, exactly, to do with copper bullets?
Show me an indication that the Army is making expanding bullets designed like the GMX, then.
Regurgitating what we all already know about "dum-dum" bullets and the Hague Convention does not indicate that. The JAG decision seems to apply to "match hollowpoint" designs that are jacketed from the rear and end up with a little hole in the nose.
Rather than repeating what we already know and what you've already said, do you have any information about the design of the Army's copper, or gilding metal, bullet?
Glock Glockler
Member
Shawn,
From the accounts of soldiers that use bullpups I haven't heard complaints about mag changes, they might complain about reliability, especially in the case of the Brit L85, and the round ejecting right into one's face is an issue, but mag changes aren't. Apparently just practicing the mag change a lot tends to solve that, and soldiers that cut their teeth on bullpups find mag changes on standard rifles awkward.
From the accounts of soldiers that use bullpups I haven't heard complaints about mag changes, they might complain about reliability, especially in the case of the Brit L85, and the round ejecting right into one's face is an issue, but mag changes aren't. Apparently just practicing the mag change a lot tends to solve that, and soldiers that cut their teeth on bullpups find mag changes on standard rifles awkward.
OP
OP
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,195
Combat reload (outside of controlled shooting range conditions) is but one example. There are other issues with poor balance (buttstock heavy), increased muzzle blast effects on the shooter in CQB settings, increased effort and time to clear stoppages (problem solving can be accomplished quicker with an M4 than any bullpup design, especially when the shooter's ability to manipulate the weapon is compromised (prone, modified prone)), the operator is physically closer (and more vulnerable) to his adversary when a muzzle strike or bayoneting is necessary, catastrophic failures put the explosion closer to the shooter's face and body. There are reasons why you don't see SpecOps using bullpup designs for CQB. The hypothesized advantages of the bullpup design aren't realized in hands-on experience.
Last edited:
Cromlech
Member
I can attest that clearing stoppages in the LA85/86 weapons (in my admittedly limited experience) are not exactly fun, but luckily I'm a civvie and never had to try it in combat.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
ArmedBear, you may be failing to account for the fact that these particular copper bullets *may very well be* just as reliable of expanders as a Barnes TSX. Do you have any evidence that they're NOT?
It is also further possible that even if they're not, a bullet *could* be easily designed which DOES while still maintaining compliance with Hague. Look at the SOST ammo - so now we've apparently done and end-run around Hague by making the hollow point opening smaller and voila, it's no longer a "hollow point" but rather an "open tip" - therefore OK with Hague and all (even though we're not bound by it).
With that in mind, there's no reason on earth why you couldn't make an open tip all-copper bullet which (a) expands as reliably as a Barnes TSX, over a wide range of velocities, due to it's open tip, and (b) is the same weight and therefore the same velocity as the current M855 - 62 grains, assming arguendo that that is the optimum weight, and (c) because of natural bullet shape, material density, and bullet BC relationships, the same weight of copper bullet takes up more length, which gives it a better BC and SD, (d) is friendlier to the environment (which is THEIR GOAL, for better or worse), and (e) performs well even from 13-14.5" barrels or even shorter. So really, at this point along the density/BC curve, the slightly-less-dense copper is actually an advantage, giving it roughly the optimum density for bullet materials (for many if not most calibers). It's an advantage, not a disadvantage, particularly in a .22 cal bullet. Now go to anything less dense than copper, then yeah, you're moving past the sweet spot and it becomes a disadvantage.
So if *done right*, an all-copper bullet could be better in all respects, including Hague compliance (even though we're not bound by Hague, we still follow it), with the sole exception of COST, and they don't seem all that too-fired concerned about cost, running with bismuth-tin alloys!
The best idea seems to be a rapidly-expanding "open tip" all-copper bullet with a steel penetrator, in the range of 70-75 grains - giving it mad BCs, great penetration, and excellent expansion even at lower velocities (in the 2600-2700 range let's say).
Even if you don't do an open tip bullet, the Barnes MRX has a ballistic tip on an all copper bullet, and it still expands like a muthahumpa. Now I don't know if a ballistic tip bullet is or isn't *as* "feigned-Hague-compliance-friendly" as an open tip (NOT hollow point mind you!), but if it is "just as ok" as the SOST bullet, then all's you gotta do is make an MRX bullet in the right weight and add a steel penetrator core, and your'e in bidness, easily dealing out massive damage as well as penetration below 2500 fps.
It is also further possible that even if they're not, a bullet *could* be easily designed which DOES while still maintaining compliance with Hague. Look at the SOST ammo - so now we've apparently done and end-run around Hague by making the hollow point opening smaller and voila, it's no longer a "hollow point" but rather an "open tip" - therefore OK with Hague and all (even though we're not bound by it).
With that in mind, there's no reason on earth why you couldn't make an open tip all-copper bullet which (a) expands as reliably as a Barnes TSX, over a wide range of velocities, due to it's open tip, and (b) is the same weight and therefore the same velocity as the current M855 - 62 grains, assming arguendo that that is the optimum weight, and (c) because of natural bullet shape, material density, and bullet BC relationships, the same weight of copper bullet takes up more length, which gives it a better BC and SD, (d) is friendlier to the environment (which is THEIR GOAL, for better or worse), and (e) performs well even from 13-14.5" barrels or even shorter. So really, at this point along the density/BC curve, the slightly-less-dense copper is actually an advantage, giving it roughly the optimum density for bullet materials (for many if not most calibers). It's an advantage, not a disadvantage, particularly in a .22 cal bullet. Now go to anything less dense than copper, then yeah, you're moving past the sweet spot and it becomes a disadvantage.
So if *done right*, an all-copper bullet could be better in all respects, including Hague compliance (even though we're not bound by Hague, we still follow it), with the sole exception of COST, and they don't seem all that too-fired concerned about cost, running with bismuth-tin alloys!
The best idea seems to be a rapidly-expanding "open tip" all-copper bullet with a steel penetrator, in the range of 70-75 grains - giving it mad BCs, great penetration, and excellent expansion even at lower velocities (in the 2600-2700 range let's say).
Even if you don't do an open tip bullet, the Barnes MRX has a ballistic tip on an all copper bullet, and it still expands like a muthahumpa. Now I don't know if a ballistic tip bullet is or isn't *as* "feigned-Hague-compliance-friendly" as an open tip (NOT hollow point mind you!), but if it is "just as ok" as the SOST bullet, then all's you gotta do is make an MRX bullet in the right weight and add a steel penetrator core, and your'e in bidness, easily dealing out massive damage as well as penetration below 2500 fps.
Last edited:
Glock Glockler
Member
First off, why would there be increased muzzle blast? One can have a bullpup that is the same overall length as a short M4, so the barrel is the same distance away from the shooter's face, the bullpup just allows more barrel length to burn powder, so if anything they should suffer less from that issue?
Next, many people find the bullpups to be more ergonomic than traditional rifles and prefer the balance on bullpups. While some might be rear heavy others can feel just right. Less weight towards the front means the solder doesn't have to use as much muscle to support since weight closer in means the skeleton can support it more.
You probably haven't seen SpecOps using bullpups because they traditionally eject into one's face if shooting lefty, that is a completely legitimate reason not to use one but with forward ejecting bullpups that hurdle is pretty much cleared, especially if it has a good trigger like the KelTec RFB reportedly has. These kinds of bullpups are relatively new so it might be a while before you see them being more generally accepted.
Also, you're cherry picking to a certain extent, only pointing out negatives when being completely honest would require evaluating both the pros and cons. The RFB has a longer barrel with the same OAL and would make the 5.56 more lethal, the lack of lethality being by the Army has been tweaking the round for most of it's history. Although they claim it's adequate their actions say otherwise.
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
Nope. If the design is right, maybe on the Ballistic Coefficient, but BC is not a constant and is not very dependent on the bullet material, mainly the design. Sectional Density, on the other hand, is a constant - weight of the bullet and bore diameter are used to determine SD. Example, all 62 grain .223 bullets will have the exact same SD.
Why anyone is spending money on this is a mystery.
Call up Barnes and get some .223 bullets shipped to the AMU, see what happens. The bigger question is for the frickin' environmentalists; how many EBL's have been reported around the Army Bases in question? I think if someone were to look close enough into this Bullsh*t they would smell a lie as big as global warming. If you all really want to know the truth, terrorists smashing planes into skyscrapers pose a much larger threat to the environment than all the bullets fired throughout our modern history...and that's a fact! Our Army Generals need to pull their heads out of their flippin behinds and start focusing on cleaning out the "Pinko", tree hugging, ****** bags within it's own ranks, win the frickin' wars their in now, and then tell the "Green" movement to go take a movement of their own in another country. God I am sick of all the PC, boot lickers in this government! Sorry for the rant, but for God's sake we all have bigger problems than this!
I use barnes bullets in my 7 mag and 300 mag on elk and mule deer. It would be ugly what they would do to a human body within 400 yds. I know the smaller 223 round is a different story but so is it with lead. It is a little pissant round no matter what it is made of. BTW I am sick of all the fanatics in the evironmental movement and goverment in general.
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
It's probably mandated by Congress. When I left active duty, we were getting beat silly about environmental issues.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
That is unfortunately self-contradictory. OTM's are acceptable per JAG only because they don't expand; the tiny hollow tip is a consequence of the closed base (for accuracy), but it behaves like FMJ with regard to terminal ballistics, and is therefore treated as FMJ for the purposes of the Hague accords. The OTM's being used don't expand, they yaw and fragment just like FMJ, from what I've been able to determine.
If a bullet were designed with a tiny HP but expanded like a regular hollowpoint, it would be classed as an expanding bullet and would violate Hague unless we decided to no longer abide by it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
