Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact
NitroExpress.com: U.S.'s new 5.56 bullet

View recent messages : 24 hours | 48 hours | 7 days | 14 days | 30 days | 60 days | More Smilies


*** Enjoy NitroExpress.com? Participate and join in. ***

Shooting & Reloading - Mausers, Big Bores and others >> Rifles

Pages: 1
500grains
.416 member


Reged: 16/02/04
Posts: 4732
Loc: Salt Lake City, Utah USA
U.S.'s new 5.56 bullet
      #163114 - 01/07/10 01:44 AM

62 grains



EPR



Edited by CptCurl (03/07/10 10:24 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DarylS
.700 member


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 26539
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: U.S.'s new 5.56 bullet [Re: 500grains]
      #163159 - 01/07/10 12:16 PM

Cool! - the bottom one looks like a good small deer bullet for the faster twist .223's.

--------------------
Daryl


"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CHAPUISARMES
.416 member


Reged: 16/01/08
Posts: 2908
Loc: DUBBO, NSW, AUSTRALIA
Re: U.S.'s new 5.56 bullet [Re: DarylS]
      #163162 - 01/07/10 01:05 PM

They forgot to mention the "Depleted Uranium" tip one's or are they only for the larger calibers ??

Cheers,

Jeff Gray


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Grenadier
.375 member


Reged: 20/02/08
Posts: 570
Loc: North of the Columbia, USA
Re: U.S.'s new 5.56 bullet [Re: CHAPUISARMES]
      #163170 - 01/07/10 03:45 PM


Army won’t field deadlier Corps round


Special Operations Command and now the Marine Corps are fielding a deadlier 5.56mm round, but the Army says soldiers can’t have it. Instead, the service is holding on to its dream of environmentally friendly ammunition. Army ammunition officials are on their third attempt at redesigning the Cold War-era M855 5.56mm round by adding a better-performing, lead-free bullet. The service had to halt the M855A1 Lead-Free Slug program in July when the new bullet failed to perform under high temperatures . The setback delayed fielding by nearly a year. The newest version of the green round is in the live-fire test phase, and Army officials said they are confident it will be ready for combat use by June.

The Marine Corps, however, doesn’t share this confidence. The Corps has dropped its plans to field the Army’s M855A1 and approved the new SOST round for Marines to use in Afghanistan. SOST, short for Special Operations Science and Technology, is SOCom’s enhanced 5.56mm round . It isn’t green, but it is deadlier than the current M855 round and it’s available now, Marine officials say. The Corps’ decision to purchase about 2 million SOST rounds in September illustrates the growing frustration with the M855’s performance on the modern battlefield.

The M855 was developed in the 1970s and approved as an official NATO round in 1980. In recent years, troops have widely criticized it. They complain it is ineffective against barriers such as car windshields and often travels right through unarmored insurgents, with less than lethal effects. Jason Gillis, a former Army staff sergeant, first witnessed the M855’s shortcomings in 2004 on the streets of Baghdad. He was a squad leader with 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, on patrol when a vehicle began speeding toward his unit. After several warnings, “both of our M249s opened up instantly, forming a crisscross pattern of tracer that met at the vehicles engine compartment and windshield. Within seconds, riflemen and grenadiers were executing magazine changes while the vehicle kept rolling and finally stopped 10 meters from my lead troops,” Gillis recalled in an e-mail to Army Times. He is now a freelance writer who often focuses on military small-arms issues. “Assuming the driver was most likely riddled beyond recognition, we were all astounded to see the driver emerge from the vehicle completely unscathed,” Gillis wrote. “Closer inspection revealed that the M855 ammunition had failed to effectively penetrate the vehicle’s windshield despite the fact over 400 rounds were expended at extremely close range and on target.”

Other soldiers say they like the M855 because it’s lightweight, but wish it had more punch. “The idea of being able to carry 210 rounds [basic load] is quickly overshadowed by the fact that it takes more than one and even more than two rounds to drop the enemy,” Staff Sgt. Charles Kouri, 82nd Airborne Division, told Army Times. Army going ‘green’ Army officials acknowledged that the M855 “has not been providing the ‘stopping power’ the user would like at engagement ranges less than 150 yards,” according to a June 17, 2005, Project Manager Maneuver Ammunition briefing.

Ballistics experts maintain, however, that no bullet is perfect and that it is highly unlikely any bullet will cause an enemy to drop every time after just one shot. “There is not a bullet in this world that will do that,” said Dr. Martin Fackler, the former director of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research and a combat surgeon during Vietnam. “Even if you take the guy’s heart apart, he can still shoot back at you for 15 seconds because he’s still got enough oxygen in the blood in his brain to do it.”

Still, the Army pushed forward with two priorities: to find ammo that performs better and is also lead-free. As part of a larger effort to study bullet lethality, the Army began revamping its green bullet program, an effort that began in 1996. The first attempt featured a tungsten-nylon blend that didn’t perform well and proved to be almost as harmful to the environment as lead. Another attempt, with the M855A1 LFS, appeared to be the solution. The new round was made of a bismuth-tin alloy with a steel penetrator. Army officials said the M855A1 provided more “consistent performance” than the M855 round, and performed better against barriers such as windshields and car doors. The Army has spent about $32 million on the LFS program since fiscal 2007. The Army had planned to start issuing the first of 20 million M855A1 rounds last August, until an 11th-hour problem surfaced when some of the bullets did not follow their trajectory or intended flight path. The slug proved to be sensitive to heat.

The latest setback led the Army to search for a new lead-free slug material and prompted the Marine Corps, which was interested in the M855A1, to go with SOCom’s new 5.56mm round instead. “We put our money toward SOST because of the lead-free failure,” said Chief Warrant Officer-5 Jeffrey Eby, the Corps’ senior gunner. “That lead-free bullet in the last six months just fell apart on them under extreme heat.” More accurate round SOST rounds have similar ballistics to the M855 round, meaning combat troops don’t have to adjust to using the new ammo, military officials say. Using an open-tip match round design common with some sniper ammunition, SOST rounds are designed to stay on target better than existing M855 rounds after penetrating windshields, car doors and other objects.

Compared with the M855, SOST rounds also stay on target longer in open air and have increased stopping power, according to Navy Department documents obtained by Marine Corps Times. At 62 grains, they weigh about the same as most NATO rounds, have a typical lead core with a solid copper shank and are considered a variation of Federal Cartridge Co.’s Federal Trophy Bonded Bear Claw round, which was developed for big-game hunting and is touted in a company news release for its ability to crush bone. SOCom developed the new round, formally known as the MK318 MOD 0, for use with the Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR, which needed a more accurate bullet because its short barrel, at 13.8 inches, is less than an inch shorter than the M4 carbine’s.

SOCom first fielded the SOST round in April, said Air Force Maj. Wesley Ticer, a spokesman for the command. It also fielded a cousin — MK319 MOD 0 enhanced 7.62mm SOST ammo — designed for use with the SCAR-Heavy, a powerful 7.62mm battle rifle. SOCom uses both kinds of ammunition, Ticer said.

The Corps purchased a “couple million” SOST rounds as part of a joint $6 million, 10.4-million-round buy in September — enough to last the service several months in Afghanistan, Marine Corps officials said. Despite the popularity of the SOST, the Army isn’t backing away from its goal to perfect its green M855A1 round. “SOST is a good round, but SOST is not a lead-free slug,” said Lt. Col. Tom Henthorn, chief of the Small Arms Branch at the Soldier Requirements Division at Fort Benning, Ga. The Army will continue to develop an environmentally friendly 5.56mm, as well as a lead-free 7.62mm bullet, Henthorn added, “because we care about the environment.”

Small arms training accounts for about 2,000 metric tons of lead going into the environment every year, Army officials say. The Army first began its quest for green ammunition in response to environmental groups that pressured some states to prohibit some National Guard units from using their training ranges. Run-off from lead-contaminated soil can contaminate water sources that supply communities located near the ranges, environmental groups maintain. “We do have real reasons why we are doing this,” said Chris Grassano, product manager for Maneuver Ammunition Systems. Grassano, however, did say that the Army does not have a “significant percentage” of training ranges that have been closed because of lead damage to the environment.

The latest M855A1 design features a solid copper slug instead of bismuth-tin. During production qualification testing, Army testers will shoot 400,000 rounds of the new version, making the M855A1 “the most tested round we have ever developed,” said Lt. Col. Jeff Woods, product manager for Small and Medium Caliber Ammunition. The new round addresses the consistency problems of the M855, but Army ballistics officials said “we are not at liberty to compare it to SOST,” Grassano said. While copper is more expensive than lead, Army officials said they could not provide a cost estimate for the M855A1 compared to the current M855. If all goes well in testing, the M855A1 will be ready in June in “sufficient quantities to satisfy the needs of theater,” Grassano said. “We are pretty confident that once we get it into soldiers’ hands, they will be satisfied with” the new round.

--------------------
~


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DarylS
.700 member


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 26539
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: U.S.'s new 5.56 bullet [Re: Grenadier]
      #163186 - 02/07/10 01:56 AM

That's disgusting performance.

The FNFAL never had a problem with one shot, one drop- or to going through the guy behind a windshield and whatever is in the back seat as well.

'Course, that's the difference between a rifle ctg. and a short range gopher ctg.

--------------------
Daryl


"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
tophet1
.400 member


Reged: 15/09/07
Posts: 1873
Loc: NSW, Australia
Re: U.S.'s new 5.56 bullet [Re: DarylS]
      #163206 - 02/07/10 09:50 AM

Quote:

That's disgusting performance.

The FNFAL never had a problem with one shot, one drop- or to going through the guy behind a windshield and whatever is in the back seat as well.

'Course, that's the difference between a rifle ctg. and a short range gopher ctg.




+1


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rule303
.416 member


Reged: 05/07/09
Posts: 4919
Loc: Woodford Qld
Re: U.S.'s new 5.56 bullet [Re: DarylS]
      #163236 - 02/07/10 09:03 PM

Well the US Army might want to be green but why not get an effective round into combat use now so allied troops and their own have a far better chance of success in a gun fight. This would include less casualties to our own. They can keep working on the green ammo after they get effective ammo in the field.

Agreed. bring back the 7.62X51. Nothing wrong with the old SLR etc. Some may complain about the weight but once it starts to show how effective it is at 0 to 600+ meters not too many will complain.

If they do not want to go to the expense of re equiping and traing with a new firearm then go to the 6.8SPC or 6.5Grendel. Same weapon just replace the upper, barrel and mag follower. Not as effective as a 308 but more than a 5.56. Just my opinion.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GK
.300 member


Reged: 29/10/09
Posts: 161
Loc: Adelaide
Re: U.S.'s new 5.56 bullet [Re: Rule303]
      #163278 - 03/07/10 11:01 AM


The 5.56 only does well because the standard comparison test is normally ballistic gelatin blocks. This in my mind is not representative of human torso's. Its too soft and as the 5.56 tumbles easily it always results in larger wound channels, but this doesn't equate to better stopping power in the real world. Better tests would be against animals, but this is not pollitically correct, is messy and hard to control scientifically, so the gelatin block keeps getting used.

The 5.56 only has half the energy of the 7.62x39 at around 500m and thats for the longer barelled versions that no one uses anymore. Some M4 barrels are down around the 12-14" mark these days.

I would feel undergunned using 5.56/.223 on goats and I'm not alone. The SSAA Hunting and Coservation club sets the minimum for goat culls as .22/250.

If I had to put my life on the line, I'd want the stopping power and range of a 7.62x51 for most applications apart from close quater battle.
George


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DarylS
.700 member


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 26539
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: U.S.'s new 5.56 bullet [Re: GK]
      #163282 - 03/07/10 03:01 PM

I agree - the 6.8 (.277") would be better for sure. Since the military man/women carries more weight these days, the emphasis has been on lighter weapons, of course. The 6.8 or a 7mm would be a step in the right direction.

--------------------
Daryl


"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mckinney
.400 member


Reged: 29/01/09
Posts: 1213
Loc: usa
Re: U.S.'s new 5.56 bullet [Re: DarylS]
      #163363 - 04/07/10 11:20 PM

Agree - the "new" 5.56mm bullet needs to be not a .223 bullet at all, but a .30 cal bullet of 180 grains or so. I saw an article not very long ago in, I think, the New York Times stating that the US military was considering heavier caliber rifle cartridges for use in Afghanistan because of the long ranges. The article mentioned the superiority of World War II era Mauser and Enfield rifles used by the Taliban at the ranges at which they were being used! I could never understand the rationale behind fold-up .22's with 16-inch barrels firing a 55 grain projectile for use at mountain ranges.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mckinney
.400 member


Reged: 29/01/09
Posts: 1213
Loc: usa
Re: U.S.'s new 5.56 bullet [Re: mckinney]
      #163365 - 04/07/10 11:38 PM

Here is a link to the article mentioned above:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/us-rifles-not-suited-for-_n_584856.html


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
EricD
.416 member


Reged: 27/02/04
Posts: 4636
Re: U.S.'s new 5.56 bullet [Re: mckinney]
      #163368 - 05/07/10 12:03 AM

Quote:


Special Operations Command and now the Marine Corps are fielding a deadlier 5.56mm round, but the Army says soldiers can’t have it. Instead, the service is holding on to its dream of environmentally friendly ammunition.




The US Army bureaucrats need to put down their bong pipes, and admit to themselves that saving US and allied lives is more important than pretending to be "green". Use what is effective, not what is politically correct.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rule303
.416 member


Reged: 05/07/09
Posts: 4919
Loc: Woodford Qld
Re: U.S.'s new 5.56 bullet [Re: mckinney]
      #163503 - 06/07/10 09:10 PM

Just read that article and it seems to be contradicted by US experience in Somalia, Iraq. That is the complaint was that the 5.56 even at close range took 3 or more hits to stop an enemy. That is as the Colonel said in the article the M4 is more lethal because it can put more rounds on target.

Humm, that means I have to carry at least 3 times the amount of ammo to somebody carrying a 7.62X51 so I will end up carrying more weight and probably spend more time on a target instead of 2 hits move on.

I did read somewhere that the troops they seem to be getting good reports from come across as being young and not knowing the difference in using a 7.62 as opposed to 5.56 even at close range.

Lets hope that a rational and quick but well thought out solution to this mess is implemented asap.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mckinney
.400 member


Reged: 29/01/09
Posts: 1213
Loc: usa
Re: U.S.'s new 5.56 bullet [Re: Rule303]
      #163639 - 08/07/10 05:41 AM

Yes, amen to that.

I'd like to see them go to something like the .300 or .338 win mag or even the good old .30-06. If I were the enemy 1,000 yards downrange, I'd be much more fearful of a well aimed shot from any one of those than a burst of .223 fire in the general direction.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tentman
.300 member


Reged: 13/06/10
Posts: 128
Loc: Southland, New Zealand
Re: U.S.'s new 5.56 bullet [Re: mckinney]
      #163650 - 08/07/10 11:52 AM

Hello Guys

As a newby here I'll stick my neck out a bit and see if ya'll "bite".

In my mind a lot of this has to do with the training the guys get, and I feel dammed sorry for them.

I did my basic training (12 week course) in 1982 with the NZ Army (OK first giggle for you all - I know)but even then to someone who was a keen "shooter" it was very disapointing.

We spent maybe 3 days on the range, mainly focussing on FAL's but a few shoots with M16's and MG's(Sterlings SMG'slater, I was a Gunner - it was our standard firearm, god help us if we'd ever made actual combat and had the gunlines come under small arms fire).

Even then marksmanship was a very haphasard concept, I (and a couple of other hunter/shooter types in my intake) could shoot the pants off the NCO's and 99% of the intructors. Once it got windy they were hopeless, and their knowledge of trajectory was very weak, off a range and having to estimate distance they'd have been very little threat to anyone.

My guess is that generally most modern soldiers have so much other stuff to learn that their practical shooting skills are pretty poor, and "hosing" targets is the only way they can compensate for this. I know from talking with cobbers who were in Vietnam that our US friends were at that stage even then, and statistics on small arms ammo use certainly bears this out.

Lots of your comments above reflect a "marksmanship" ethos that just doesn't seem to be what is common "in the field".

If the focus was on fire control and shot placement I'm sure they'd be a lot better off even with the equipment (and ammo) they've got.

Cheers - Foster

--------------------
Southland, New Zealand


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rule303
.416 member


Reged: 05/07/09
Posts: 4919
Loc: Woodford Qld
Re: U.S.'s new 5.56 bullet [Re: Tentman]
      #163805 - 10/07/10 10:22 PM

G'day Tentman. Welcome to the Forum.

Once the bullet gets to the enemy it still has to be effective and 5.56 is not.

As a member of the Aussie Army reserve i spent 2 weeks in Kiwi in 82 or 3 with your Territorials?. Yep they couldn't shoot to save themselves. But time and training have changed.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
tward1604
.275 member


Reged: 14/07/10
Posts: 51
Loc: texas
Re: U.S.'s new 5.56 bullet [Re: Rule303]
      #218166 - 19/10/12 07:35 AM

being active duty us military i feel i have a valid personal opinion on the matter. The 5.56x45 isn't the problem, i've seen it work wonders on guys who deserved it all the way out to 600 yds. the problem is with the bullet design. When you have a lighter front than the rear end like round we shoot now it causes the front to slow down quicker that the back half does therefore causeing it to tumble inside your target and we all know that once that happens penetration stops. i have seen rounds hit a man in his stomach and exit 3 inches above that without ever making it into his guts. we carry 6 mags of 30 for a standard light loadout if they really want to conserve ammo and put more bad guys in the dirt the best way to do that is with the sost round or any other controlled expansion quality bullet


But if they want to go "green" and put people in the dirt and bring me and my friends home we could allways go to a very common name in bullet manufacture BARNES i happen to think that a good 60-70 gr. barnes would be just the ticket. Not to mention the fact that barnes bullets are very accurate and "barrier blind"

just my dumb infrantryman opinion

thank you
cpl
USMC

--------------------
Thank you
SGT
USMC


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DarylS
.700 member


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 26539
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: U.S.'s new 5.56 bullet [Re: tward1604]
      #218176 - 19/10/12 09:06 AM

TKS Cpl - for everything!

--------------------
Daryl


"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1



Extra information
0 registered and 53 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:   

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 7458

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us NitroExpress.com

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5


Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact


Copyright 2003 to 2011 - all rights reserved