Mk 262 - Military usage

[C-grunt]

I wasn't any sort of special operations and I used M262 exclusively in 2005.

[sinister]

I’ve read a fair amount about the benefits of the Black Hills ammo for both longer range and shorter barrel work.

So who in the US military is using it? Why wasn’t/isn’t this rolled out instead of 855A1 or the never-ending search for a second intermediate cartridge?

I initially started this in the general board, and was kindly directed here...

It sounded like the issue was lack of barrier penetration?

Mark 262 was originally designed as a target cartridge for competition at the National Matches and the Navy Championships. It just happens to be a very accurate cartridge. 9-11 happened and the USAMU was able to load a few 5th SF Group trucks so their SPRs had effective longer-range ammo.

The Army G4 didn't and doesn't want to buy it because it's more expensive than mass-produced ball ammo.

It was the benchmark for competition teams, Designated Marksmen, and SF guys who could pilfer it from stocks originally set aside for SPRs. It is NOT an issue cartridge for the line General Purpose Forces Army.

Marine rifle teams wanted a 77-grain match cartridge to preclude having to load two separate non-standard cartridges (77s and 80s). Their moly-coated 77s are for rifle competition. Their barrier-blind ammo was a requirement because they weren't happy with M855.

M855A1 is a relatively recent round originally developed from the requirement for lead-free ammunition at National Guard small arms ranges in Massachusetts. It is the new GP forces round.

Don't confuse the fact that although a competition team, separate service (Marines or Navy), small unit (CID, NCIS, AFOSI, Coast Guard), or SOCOM has issued an ammo item that it is a standard cartridge issued across the entire Army or the entire military.

[indianalex01]

Quit propagating bullshit about the Geneva Convention, and go read about it, and what it covers.

Perfectly said. Can’t believe people still say BS like that. Making fools of themselves

[vicious_cb]

Mark 262 was originally designed as a target cartridge for competition at the National Matches and the Navy Championships. It just happens to be a very accurate cartridge. 9-11 happened and the USAMU was able to load a few 5th SF Group trucks so their SPRs had effective longer-range ammo.

The Army G4 didn't and doesn't want to buy it because it's more expensive than mass-produced ball ammo.

It was the benchmark for competition teams, Designated Marksmen, and SF guys who could pilfer it from stocks originally set aside for SPRs. It is NOT an issue cartridge for the line General Purpose Forces Army.

Marine rifle teams wanted a 77-grain match cartridge to preclude having to load two separate non-standard cartridges (77s and 80s). Their moly-coated 77s are for rifle competition. Their barrier-blind ammo was a requirement because they weren't happy with M855.

M855A1 is a relatively recent round originally developed from the requirement for lead-free ammunition at National Guard small arms ranges in Massachusetts. It is the new GP forces round.

Don't confuse the fact that although a competition team, separate service (Marines or Navy), small unit (CID, NCIS, AFOSI, Coast Guard), or SOCOM has issued an ammo item that it is a standard cartridge issued across the entire Army or the entire military.

Im not sure what you've seen but Ive heard from multiple dudes downrange who have seen the effects of the different rounds up close who say that SOST and M855A1 tend to work more effectively than Mk262. Is that your experience as well?

[indianalex01]

Im not sure what you've seen but Ive heard from multiple dudes downrange who have seen the effects of the different rounds up close who say that SOST and M855A1 tend to work more effectively than Mk262. Is that your experience as well?

All three rounds are very effective.

[vicious_cb]

All three rounds are very effective.

This from experience?

[opngrnd]

This from experience?

There is some good data out there on this. It helps to keep the round development in perspective. Mk262 is essentially a target bullet that happens to also work well on living targets as well. It has been revamped a few times to get where it is today and much can be read about it. The other two rounds were developed specifically to meet certain criteria, and in the process also ended up being effective rounds. I dont believe any of the three were optimized foremost to be effective in tissue as much as meeting criteria and not also abysmally doing worse than M855.

[vicious_cb]

There is some good data out there on this. It helps to keep the round development in perspective. Mk262 is essentially a target bullet that happens to also work well on living targets as well. It has been revamped a few times to get where it is today and much can be read about it. The other two rounds were developed specifically to meet certain criteria, and in the process also ended up being effective rounds. I dont believe any of the three were optimized foremost to be effective in tissue as much as meeting criteria and not also abysmally doing worse than M855.

Yes I understand all that. The problem is people keep touting Mk262 as the 5.56 solution when I dont believe it is. Mk318 and M855A1 are much better for general purpose military use and Im trying to find some personal experiences corroborate what Ive heard through the grape vine. That essentially Mk262 is not the end all be all carbine round despite what the internet says.

My personal opinion is that unless you have some kind of precision requirement, you are better off with a bonded SP for civilian and LE use or if you are .mil you are better off with M855A1 or SOST.

[opngrnd]

Yes I understand all that. The problem is people keep touting Mk262 as the 5.56 solution when I dont believe it is. Mk318 and M855A1 are much better for general purpose military use and Im trying to find some personal experiences corroborate what Ive heard through the grape vine. That essentially Mk262 is not the end all be all carbine round despite what the internet says.

My personal opinion is that unless you have some kind of precision requirement, you are better off with a bonded SP for civilian and LE use or if you are .mil you are better off with M855A1 or SOST.

I'd concur with that.

[pointblank4445]

Yes I understand all that. The problem is people keep touting Mk262 as the 5.56 solution when I dont believe it is. Mk318 and M855A1 are much better for general purpose military use and Im trying to find some personal experiences corroborate what Ive heard through the grape vine. That essentially Mk262 is not the end all be all carbine round despite what the internet says.

My personal opinion is that unless you have some kind of precision requirement, you are better off with a bonded SP for civilian and LE use or if you are .mil you are better off with M855A1 or SOST.

Not too hard to see where that problem comes from...

Barriers and terminal ballistics are largely a mystery to the majority of commercial end-user "home defense" crowd. In many cases, a little knowledge is worse than no knowledge (remember there are people claiming birdshot is the way to go, and many that believe that 5.56 penetrates less than 9mm as a blanket statement without qualifying bullet selection and barrier medium). What these people know (or believe they know) is accuracy. How many inquiries about "sub-MOA" AR's are there? More accuracy is mo better. So if there's a magic bullet that will cut my group by 1/2 or 2/3 over whatever Tula junk they normally use, then THAT must be the magic ticket!

Now, validate that with the fact that we have been in a 17-year war against an un-armored, technologically inferior enemy (some of which actually diety will guide their bullets into the infidels) in a geographic location that is all about distance engagement. Not hard to see why the Mk262 could be put to use...poke holes at distance and let the SOB's bleed it out. And somewhere "used successfully" becomes "effective". The above civilian sees such validation and a legend is born. Score one more for the internet!


We did some of our own ballistic tests, and the Mk262 was downright laughable against some barrier mediums. Gimme a Barnes TSX bullet as a do-all for acceptable accuracy and terminal performance any day of the week over a SMK unless it has to be lobbed beyond 600y.