US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war

[KevinB]

The entire idea of the Hague Convention on preventing bullets that create greater suffering etc. has been surpased by time and evolution. Secondly the enemy we currently face are illegal combatants by the same accord, and thus are not afforded those protections. Military units conducting anti-terrorist duties have been ruled previsouly not having to follow the rules against expanding ammunitions, so it then follows that units conducting operations in OIF/OEF should be allowed to follow those previosuly setup guidelines.

All that being said, all ammuntion types have upsides and downsides. For most of the current military operations M855 may currently be the best jack of all trades. I run Mk262 Mod1 as a DOD contractor - however I am no longer shooting up cars, Mk262 has previsouly been ruled compliant with the Hague Convetion, I have limited numbers of M995 AP if need be, however.

The biggest problem IMHO is marksmanship -- troops WAY to often dont hit what they aim at. Going to a bigger better whatever bullet is not going to solve the problem either UNLESS the Big Army starts teaching its soldiers how to shoot.

[chadbag]

The biggest problem IMHO is marksmanship -- troops WAY to often dont hit what they aim at. Going to a bigger better whatever bullet is not going to solve the problem either UNLESS the Big Army starts teaching its soldiers how to shoot.

This needs to be said again. A bigger bullet hitting a non vital spot won't kill the bad guy either. It may hurt a bit more though

[Robb Jensen]

The biggest problem IMHO is marksmanship -- troops WAY to often dont hit what they aim at. Going to a bigger better whatever bullet is not going to solve the problem either UNLESS the Big Army starts teaching its soldiers how to shoot.

I think that it's exactly it. Also most people are also very bad at range estimating.

[tinman44]

i just see this as another chance at shooting down colt, notice theres one expert that says its the gun not the bullet.

[DocGKR]

tinman44,

I hope your comment is in jest, otherwise you are completely out of touch...

[Safetyhit]

i just see this as another chance at shooting down colt, notice theres one expert that says its the gun not the bullet.

Not likely.

[Safetyhit]

While people often cited that "SOF uses MK262", many SOF units that initially made the switch to MK262 have now voluntarily switched back to M855. This is not speculation, it is fact.

MK262, while more accurate and more "lethal", is less reliable and durable in combat conditions. There have been minor feeding and setback issues as well as over pressure problems caused by heat. Some SOF units decided that the added accuracy and lethality was not worth the trade off in functional reliability.

Just FYI.

Now, this is relevant, interesting information. First I have heard of issues with MK262 in the field.

Why would heat affect them specifically more adversely than, say, M855? Powder composition?

[mayonaise]

To me it's the same old issues.

Lethality. Kill or incapacitate?
Load out weight
Lowest common denominator end user.
Budget

At least they have recognized the needs of certain units to make choices better suited to the needs of those units.

Kind of interesting that the gov't is paying $330 per 1K for an order of 267M rounds. Seems steep to me.

[DocGKR]

Keep in mind exactly what Mk262 was designed for--precision near match accuracy using semi-auto fire from a Mk12 vs. what the M855 was designed for--full-auto fire from a M249. Early lots of Mk262, circa 2002-2003, used propellant that provided great accuracy, but was not thermally stable in high heat. Recent lots have used an improved propellant that has solved this issue. The major problem with Mk262 is that it is NOT barrier blind and has relatively poor intermediate barrier performance.

[Hluill]

The article is full of fallacy.

I find it interesting that they quote some doctor that says it's the gun. He states that the M4 has a 14.5" barrel... ~measures the barrel of his M4~ Huh, maybe my ruler is off.

I also have trouble with the idea of CQB with an M14, even a shortened one.

My buddy, just back from Iraq hates 5.56, but he used to be a M60 gunner so I know how partial he is to 7.62.

Plenty of experienced operators still swear by the M4, though they may use different rounds for different missions.

And I have definitely seen bad guys "shake off" 30 cal. hits too.

I think too many people have this Hollywood image of getting touched by a bullet and dying. The common statistic I have heard is that gunshots are only 5% lethal. Compare that to the 35% lethality of knifings...

I know that there are an infinite number of variables when we talk about trauma that cannot be quantified, nor reduced to bullet size.

Are there any non-biased statistics out there?