Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

[Larry Ashcraft]

I've deleted several posts trying to turn this into a political discussion. Keep it on topic or I'll shut the thread down and start taking names.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

It's a tad bit more complicated, the effectively tumble in human flesh a 5.56 round has to be going so fast, if it's fired from a short barrel then it kind of complicates that. Though I don't have the specific stats of it on hand.

While that is well and good, it has nothing to do with accuracy. The statement was that they needed a more accurate ammo because they were using a barrel that was an inch shorter. That is bogus. They needed the SOST round with the hollow cavity because it is more likely to tumble and break apart at lower velocities after it hits the target. The shorter barrel will deliver less velocity, but that isn't an accuracy issue.

 

[Deanimator]

The statement was that they needed a more accurate ammo because they were using a barrel that was an inch shorter. That is bogus.

Not "bogus", merely oversimplified.

Shorter barrels usually produce lower muzzle velocity, leading to lower velocities downrange. At some engagement ranges in Afghanistan that causes the bullet to go transonic before it hits the target, a real detriment to accuracy.

While they may start out slower, heavier bullets with better ballistic coefficients retain velocity better than initially faster bullets with poor ballistic coefficients.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

No offense, but generally speaking, the people who are the biggest detractors of using the 5.56 round in combat are those who have never been in combat themselves, and like you, think of it as a varmint round. However, once you've seen the 5.56 remove the back of someone's head, you get the impression it's not bad as a combat round.

USMC is not concerned with head shot performance. The temporary cavity produced by virtually any centerfire varmint bullet will cause the cranium to burst open.

The new 62gr SOST bullet is designed to defeat hard barriers (e.g., windshield glass, automotive sheetmetal) more reliably than M855, and to provide more consistent terminal performance.

 

[LaEscopeta]

What I think the article is trying to say with “…needed a more accurate bullet because its short barrel…” is “…a bullet with less aerodynamic drag is needed, to allow flatter trajectory with the lowered muzzle velocity produced by short barrel rifles, making it easier to hit the required target.”

I think they are equating “accurate” with “hitting the target in combat.” Flatter shooting rounds are easier to get on target when the enemy is popping up at different ranges and only staying exposed for a short time. The less the rifleman has to adjust aim for bullet drop the more likely he can get hits.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

It's war. War is hell. Give em ballistic tips.
(I know, they wouldn't be feasible. To fast penetrating and stuff like that)
Just saying, why should we care how much extra damage it causes the enemy? IT'S THE ENEMY!!!

 

[Sheepdog1968]

You've never seen an M4 used in combat I take it.

No offense, but generally speaking, the people who are the biggest detractors of using the 5.56 round in combat are those who have never been in combat themselves, and like you, think of it as a varmint round. However, once you've seen the 5.56 remove the back of someone's head, you get the impression it's not bad as a combat round.

I was taking a class from an instructor who also teaches military from time to time. His thought on the AR was that people who used it have a very polarized view of it. There were those who absolutely loved it and those that absolutely hated it. Just passing it along. It's a moot point to me. I live in the controlled zone of CA so we can't have an AR unless we neuter it to the point that it is no longer an effective self defense weapon.

 

[1911Tuner]

Could it be that it's going to be a mind weapon? If the Marines would announce loudly that they intend to load the open tips with bacon fat, it may bring the hostilities to a screeching halt.

 

[LeeAdama]

I read the new SOST ammo has reduced muzzle flash, does that mean less noise as well or no?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Not "bogus", merely oversimplified.

Shorter barrels usually produce lower muzzle velocity, leading to lower velocities downrange. At some engagement ranges in Afghanistan that causes the bullet to go transonic before it hits the target, a real detriment to accuracy.

While they may start out slower, heavier bullets with better ballistic coefficients retain velocity better than initially faster bullets with poor ballistic coefficients.

So they are going from the faster and lighter 62 gr M855 to the slower and heavier 62 gr. SOST rounds? Sorry. You lost me there. Apparently, I am missing something else that is oversimplified.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

 

[LaEscopeta]

So they are going from the faster and lighter 62 gr M855 to the slower and heavier 62 gr. SOST rounds? Sorry. You lost me there. Apparently, I am missing something else that is oversimplified.

All I know is what I read on the internet.

The shorter barrels are lowering muzzle velocity, presuming the same amount for the M855 as for the new SOST rounds. The lower aerodynamic drag of the SOST maintains its velocity further down range.

Another possibility is the SOST may have a lower muzzle velocity then the M855, since the original article notes less muzzle flash from the SOST. Shorter barrels also increase muzzle flash, so possibly they downloaded the charge and/or used faster powder in the SOST to minimize this. If so the SOST may have a lower muzzle velocity then the M855 but maybe be faster at some point down range.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Still lost me. How is the 62 gr. SOST round heavier than the 62 gr. M855 round?

If so the SOST may have a lower muzzle velocity then the M855 but maybe be faster at some point down range.

I will wait until somebody releases the ballistic coefficients and actual muzzle velocity of the new round and the muzzle velocity of the M855 from the same platform before I am ready to believe that this is actually happening. I realize that it is theoretically possible, but I also realize that it may be happening beyond the effective range of the SCAR, which is about 500 meters.

 

[kgpcr]

In the Marines i was trained on and carried an M-16. I also carried an m-14 from time to time. Now an M-4 might be fine in urban areas but out in the mountains i would gladly hump and M-14. An M-4 would be worthless in that kind of terrain.

 

[C-grunt]

This new SOST round sounds pretty good. Hope it ends up replacing the M855.

 

[Steve 48]

I am surprised that Obamma's people are not talking about those deadly bullets!!

 

[Ky Larry]

As usual, Tuner nailed it. All projectiles fired at the enemy in the Middle East should be coated in bacon grease. Wars are won when the pain of fighting becomes too great for one side to continue. If I recall my history lessons correctly. the USMC has been very good at applying large amounts of suffering on America's enemies.

 

[Mr.Davis]

How about Extreme Shock ammo next?

 

[memphisjim]

wait all you ar guys say the 223 is plenty powerful enough
why would they possibly need more deadly rounds?

 

[Mr.Davis]

wait all you ar guys say the 223 is plenty powerful enough
why would they possibly need more deadly rounds?

Wow, fabulous argumentation

They're tailoring the 5.56 (NOT the .223 Remington, they're different) to better fit the application in the field. If you'd read the thread you would know the round is better than the M855 at penetrating intermediate barriers, such as car doors, windshields, and cinder blocks.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Even though I'm not a small caliber kind of guy, let me defend the .223 advocates out there. It's not a caliber issue, it's a bullet performance issue. You can get poor results with a larger caliber if the right bullet isn't chosen for a particular job.