improperlyaged
Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2013
- Messages
- 422
Why did Nato go with 124 grain? In FMJ it is going to do the exact same thing as a 115 and you can get that moving much faster. So why did they go with 124?
Aren't hollow pointed bullets disallowed on the battlefields according to treaty?
FMJ's only?
A better question would be why did the commercial market go to 115gr?
Maybe because the military aren't swayed by velocity numbers but are by performance. For some reason much of the shooting public in America have been taken in by the marketing departments who make it seem bullet speed is everything, it's not.Why did Nato go with 124 grain? In FMJ it is going to do the exact same thing as a 115 and you can get that moving much faster. So why did they go with 124?
The Hague Convention disallowed anything that caused undue pain and suffering...but flame throwers and napalm were okay...and called for full jacketed bullets.
+1When all is said and done, weight is the major factor in momentum, which adds to penetration. If an expanded bullet fails to reach vital guts, its of little value.
Weight is better, and more weight is more better.
Bob Wright
Momentum is the product of velocity and mass. Both are of equal importance.Posted by BobWright: When all is said and done, weight is the major factor in momentum, which adds to penetration.
penetration really depends upon kinetic energy
doesn't a 115 grain FMJ penatrate like 30+ inches?
And when the naked gelatin monsters attack, the 115 grain bullet may well be the bullet of choice.This is what I was talking about, even a .380 in FMJ will penetrate like the dickens, so I don't understand why the 9 more grains will somehow make a difference when shooting ball ammo doesn't make since to me.
Hornady made a 124 grain truncated flatnose FMJ that gave good performance and accuracy but never sold all that well.
The Air Force tested this bullet with positive results but the Military never adopted it.