627PCFan
Member
new idea while we are at it, hevi-shot for terrorists and insurgents. Its ok, its only taxpayer money
Ask the guys shooting 6.8 Barnes bullets hunting hogs.
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.
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.Focusing on the density of a material is a one sided approach to ballistics. Velocity is the other half of the equation. If the bullet is lighter for the same powder charge, it will be accelerated to a higher number of feet per second.
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.The 5.56 was designed as a low bullet weight high velocity round, not vice versa. So the goal fits the performance envelope.
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.Using gilding metal in solid composition bullet with aerodynamically developed hollow points isn't necessarily a step backward. Ask the guys shooting 6.8 Barnes bullets hunting hogs. Terminal performance is more important than what metal is used, and the leading edge of bullet development for controlled expansion is with copper bullets.
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.It isn't necessary to launch heavy bullets, you can launch lighter bullets at higher speeds. Yes, they will lose energy quicker, on the battlefield if they hold it to 450 yards, it's good to go. Longer ranges take bigger bullets anyway, with a different platform, etc. There is no enchanted one caliber to rule them all.
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.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.
The ideal bullet core material would probably be gold (softer than depleted uranium, far denser than lead, and environmentally friendly), but gold is out for obvious reasons...
The Army has spent about $32 million on the LFS program since fiscal 2007.
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.Shawn, I think those concerns are way overblown, this guy seems to change mags just fine.
Large caliber operating rod guns aren't more accurate.
It's already a proven gamegetter in Hornady and Barnes loads.
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.From the accounts of soldiers that use bullpups I haven't heard complaints about mag changes, they might complain about...
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.
and bullet BC relationships, the same weight of copper bullet takes up more length, which gives it a better BC and SD
Army Generals need to pull their heads out of their flippin behinds
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.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.