What bullet type for Military?

Full Metal Jacket · June 2, 2005, 01:22 AM

What bullet type do you think is most appropiate for our military to use?

(Assuming we don't follow Hague rules)

Sum1_Special · June 2, 2005, 01:56 AM

Quote:

(Assuming we don't follow Hague rules)

didnt read that before i voted... ah well, i still think it is FMJ. why? there is reason we use this type, it tends to wound rather than kill. if you kill them all you aren't doing the world or the enemies military much good. but if you wound them then you not only put that man out if service for good, you also waste the governments resources by giving them people to take care of.

Stiletto · June 2, 2005, 02:15 AM

Great for the bean counters at home, not so great for the troops who are pumping bullets in and still getting return fire.

I vote FMJ anyway, though, since body armor is becoming increasingly common.

IZinterrogator · June 2, 2005, 04:25 AM

Quote:

but if you wound them then you not only put that man out if service for good, you also waste the governments resources by giving them people to take care of.

Heh heh, guess what? We are more likely to take care of them than their government. I'm still voting FMJ, though, but only for penetration. Two holes bleed a guy out faster than one! And if it goes into another BG behind the first, I won't complain.

gb_in_ga · June 2, 2005, 10:36 AM

I was going to select FMJ until I saw the part about ignoring the Hague conventions. Then I opted for JHPs.

Why JHPs? Tough choice, and I was still tempted to choose FMJs due to the advent of bullet resistant body armor. I'm also figuring that since cost wasn't listed as a criteria, that it isn't going to be figured in -- and there is a pretty big difference in ammo costs between FMJs and JHPs. I still figure that there's no real reason to choose JSPs, as they won't really expand enough quickly enough to be any real advantage.

First, combat body armor -- of the military variety -- is going to stop FMJs as well. Second, modern design JHPs are pretty good at barrier penetration, so that isn't all that much of an advantage in the FMJ camp. But mostly, I am looking at the mission of the handgun in the combat military role: Close in, last ditch defense against heavily armed opponents. Meaning, real "knockdown power" is needed, quick incapacitation is the order of the day. Yes, I know that no handgun really gives you anything resembling knockdown power, but quick incapacitation is vital, and the quicker the better. Sounds to me like JHPs would be better in that role than FMJs. Of course, this is all academic -- we are committed to the Hague accords, so FMJs it is.

Even so -- I feel that a good case can be made that the current operations that we are undergoing in the ME are not covered by the Hague accords, which only apply to conflicts between uniformed armies that have definite command structures. Since the adversaries we face are not uniformed and have no clearly defined command structures, technically we are not bound by the Hague conventions in dealing with them -- they are terrorist criminals and can be treated as such. They have no protections at all under the rules of war. As such, I feel that we would be justified if we were to "take off the gloves" when dealing with them -- ditch the FMJs, and forget about those rules that don't apply to criminals.

OTOH, there are still some Bathist/Taliban military cadre that are operating with the terrorists, and their status is questionable. With that in mind, one could make the case that since a few of the opponents might be covered by the rules of warefare, we are better off being conservative and sticking with the more conventional armaments.

bclark1 · June 2, 2005, 10:50 AM

In our current conflicts, I say JSP. Balance penetration and expansion, we're facing unarmored targets more often than not, and it's not like most of these groups do much in terms of expensive care for their wounded so I think we should be shooting to kill. Against better equipped and standing armies that might have armor, definitely FMJ.

Hague is crap, I know some people say we need to be the better people, but I think combatants should earn the treatment they get. If they're throwing rough stuff at us and treating our captured guys like crap I think we ought to return the favor. It's not like all the humanitarian aid we've given them to date has changed any minds that our society is evil and must be destroyed anyway. Fundamentalists will be fundamentalists whether we're shooting bean bags or incendiaries at them. But I digress.

Mike40-11 · June 2, 2005, 10:51 AM

FMJ. Penetration and feeding reliability.

I realize modern JHPs come close in these aspects but, when dealing with the Army, simpler is always better.

Full Metal Jacket · June 2, 2005, 10:52 AM

Here's something to consider- wouldn't carrying all these JHPs through harsh environments like the desert (like in Iraq) clog the hollow cavities with sand, mud, grime, etc. , rendering them ineffective? Would they cost more to produce than FMJ?

chaim · June 2, 2005, 10:53 AM

For rifle, FMJ. Better penatration, and to wound a man does take more out of action than to kill a man (medics, stretcher bearers, doctors, etc). Maybe as a close second choice JSP, especially since we are using a pretty small caliber. Definately not JHP though, I want penatration.

For anything full auto, FMJ. Better feeding=more reliable.

For handguns, JHP. Handguns aren't particularly good man-stoppers as it is, give them every advantage possible. Worst case, it was mentioned in a prior post "what if in a combat environment the HP gets clogged", well then it is basically a FMJ. You never lose anything to a FMJ and it is worth a few more cents per round to have a more effective round when it does perform correctly.

tanstaafl4y · June 2, 2005, 10:55 AM

I voted FMJ also.

I'm former Active duty Army (medically discharged) and a vet of the Klinton Campaings and Afganistan. The Theory that its better to shoot and wound applies best ina traditional warfare senario where the BG will carry his wounded buddy home (taking 2 BG's out of the conflict temporarily).

But what I've seen in our current operations is that the BG will leave a wounded buddy for 2 reasons; 1) He's only worried about his own skin and 2) The wounded will recieve better medical care from US forces.

Our current adversaries tend NOT to use body armor or other military equipment (maybe a LBE type ammo belt/vest) but do hide behind mud walls and inside of lightskinned vehicles.

If I could change anything it would be the weapon distribution within the US Forces. A standard MP Squad carries 7 M-4's(5.56) 3 M-249 MG (5.56) 3 40mm Grenade Launchers(on M-4) and 3 MK-19 MG (40mm) and 10 M-9 (9mm) Pistols. I would replace two of the MK-19's with a M2 50cal and one of the Saws with a 240b (in 7.62). I think this would give a more rounded offensive/defensive capability to an MP Squad.

I use MP's as an example because its one of the 2 MOS's I've held and aslo because the MP are slowly becoming the workhorse for "Operations Other Than War" and "Light Intensity Conflict"

Just my $.02

ATW525 · June 2, 2005, 01:18 PM

I put my vote in for FMJ. In a wartime combat situation the need to penetrate potential types of cover, load bearing equipment and even body armor is more real than a typical self-defense situation at the local Stop & Rob.

Eghad · June 2, 2005, 03:19 PM

FMJ. Penetration and feeding reliability.

x2

OHMRMP · June 2, 2005, 03:40 PM

Blended Metal ammunition. Can penetrate body armor, yet causes tremendous damage as soon as it impacts flesh.

A BL round, aka Armor Piercing-Limited Penetration (AP-LP) rounds, are heat sensitive, the round "senses" a cool armor plate and stays cold, and penetrates. But as soon as it hits warm flesh, the projectile, for the lack of a better word, "explodes." It rapidly expands and fragments in all directions, literally blowing apart flesh. Pretty nasty stuff.

However a friendly-fire incident with said ammo would be terrible, as if fratricide isn't terrible enough.

Second choice would have to be the tried and true FMJ, 55gr M193s preferable, 62gr M855 third, and lastly the 77gr Open Tip M262 Mod 0 and Mod 1s the USSOCOM's been using lately.

BatmanX · June 2, 2005, 03:47 PM

OHMRMP:

I was having a hard time finding people that had heard/read about those rounds. Glad I didn't dream them up!

Those rounds are scary as hell!

OHMRMP · June 2, 2005, 03:52 PM

Also due to the heat sensitivity, they apparently won't pass through more than a few layers of drywall, which could make them useful in areas where one would normally employ an SMG to avoid over-penetration. Good for urban operations.

seeker_two · June 3, 2005, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Blended Metal ammunition. Can penetrate body armor, yet causes tremendous damage as soon as it impacts flesh.

Either that or a EMFJ/Pow'R'Ball-type design. You still get hardball-reliable feeding in your weapons & have better terminal performance.

Heck, the 9mm round would be a lot better stopper if they'd go back to the original Luger design (115gr. truncated-cone flat-point at +P velocities)....

Thx1138 · June 12, 2005, 10:18 PM

I am an activated reservist and I want the Baathist/Jihaadist scum to go down like he was hit by a 50 cal round. I do not want to wound him to live to fight again. I vote JSP. I am not sure how much a 5.56 mm round expands but the more the better. I would like to use blended metal rounds myself.

Crosshair · June 12, 2005, 11:24 PM

I voted HP.

1. SP ammo can get dinged up too easy.
2. We never ratified the Hague Convention.
3. HP penetrates as well as Ball. AP is overkill in 5.56.

I got a chance to talk with someone who knows quite a bit about the Blended Metal bullets. He said that there are many advantages to them but there are a few issues that he specificly mentioned.

1. Long term storage.
2. Mass production and QC issues.
3. Cost.

Overall he thought they would be excellent in specialized uses like snipers and Special Forces. But that it would be a bad idea to make them general issue to the military.

What would happen if the armor was 90+ F like can happen in the desert sun. Would we just be shooting powder at them then?

Impact of Reason · June 13, 2005, 10:33 AM

any one of these would be good choices, depending on the situation. IMO the military should stock multiple types of ammunition so the soldier could just grab whatever he thinks he needs for his situation.

625 · June 13, 2005, 02:23 PM

fmj for rifle.

hp for pistol.

stevelyn · June 13, 2005, 02:56 PM

FMJ. We're not only shooting bad guys. We're shooting bad guys behind barriers and shooting up equipment. The ammo we issue has to balance all of these traits and feed reliably in guns manufactured by the lowest bidder.
Perhaps to enhance performance on human targets, the bullet could be destablized a bit by decreasing the twist rate of the rifling slightly.

Crosshair · June 14, 2005, 12:28 AM

5.56 has never had a very good record for heavy barrier penitration stevelyn and good HP ammo penitrates barriers almost as good and has better terminal balistics. But I think 625 has given me an idea, with the belted 5.56 and 7.62 ammo our SAW's and GPMG's use we could simply mix HP and FMJ ammo together in the belt. Since we do this with tracers already it would be rather simple to do so. But now as I think about it, we probably wouldn't need to do it with the 7.62 ammo as penitration with 7.62 would not be gratly impared with HP ammo. Though it would probably be a good idea to mix in AP ammo for needed penitration. You should use 7.62 to make those pesky barriers disapear then get them with the 5.56 when they move from cover. If 7.62 is unavailable, then apply gernades where needed. BTW is the safety on the M203 as bad as I have heard it to be?

stevelyn · June 14, 2005, 06:33 PM

Crosshair,

I wasn't talking about heavy barriers. Heavy barriers get the chain gun or shoulder fired rocket treatment. I'm talking about punching through cars, walls, doors and windows.

Crosshair · June 14, 2005, 06:59 PM

stevelyn

OK, I see you're point. Then perhaps we can ditch this steel core ammo that doesn't like to fragment and go with a simple lead core FMJ bullet. It will still penitrate the barriers you mentioned, but more readily fragment inside the body. We can keep the steel core ammo on hand in case we need it for some reason. I think Impact of Reason is right. Keep different kinds of ammo on hand for different uses. All the ammo will work in the same weapon, you will just be able to use the ammo that best suits the situation.

Limeyfellow · June 14, 2005, 07:06 PM

The new combat armour isn't as good as its made out to be. Theres been big problems with it, that 9mm ammo had punched straight through the armour multiple times, and even though it was rejected as safe, it was still sent into combat to keep the likes of the Marines safe from shrapnel. FMJ is going to go nicely through most the body armour currently used. We also seen more body armour along with things like the latest generation of nightvision from the US and new equipment used by our enemies, that the extra penetration power of a FMJ still made more sense than changing it.

View Poll Results: Which bullet type is best for the military?
Full metal Jacket	23	45.10%
Jacketed Soft Point	11	21.57%
Jacketed Hollow Point	12	23.53%
Other	5	9.80%
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll

June 2, 2005, 01:22 AM	#1
Full Metal Jacket Senior Member Join Date: December 8, 2004 Posts: 260	What bullet type for Military? What bullet type do you think is most appropiate for our military to use? (Assuming we don't follow Hague rules)

June 2, 2005, 10:36 AM	#5
gb_in_ga Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 2005 Location: Pensacola, Fl Posts: 3,092	I was going to select FMJ until I saw the part about ignoring the Hague conventions. Then I opted for JHPs. Why JHPs? Tough choice, and I was still tempted to choose FMJs due to the advent of bullet resistant body armor. I'm also figuring that since cost wasn't listed as a criteria, that it isn't going to be figured in -- and there is a pretty big difference in ammo costs between FMJs and JHPs. I still figure that there's no real reason to choose JSPs, as they won't really expand enough quickly enough to be any real advantage. First, combat body armor -- of the military variety -- is going to stop FMJs as well. Second, modern design JHPs are pretty good at barrier penetration, so that isn't all that much of an advantage in the FMJ camp. But mostly, I am looking at the mission of the handgun in the combat military role: Close in, last ditch defense against heavily armed opponents. Meaning, real "knockdown power" is needed, quick incapacitation is the order of the day. Yes, I know that no handgun really gives you anything resembling knockdown power, but quick incapacitation is vital, and the quicker the better. Sounds to me like JHPs would be better in that role than FMJs. Of course, this is all academic -- we are committed to the Hague accords, so FMJs it is. Even so -- I feel that a good case can be made that the current operations that we are undergoing in the ME are not covered by the Hague accords, which only apply to conflicts between uniformed armies that have definite command structures. Since the adversaries we face are not uniformed and have no clearly defined command structures, technically we are not bound by the Hague conventions in dealing with them -- they are terrorist criminals and can be treated as such. They have no protections at all under the rules of war. As such, I feel that we would be justified if we were to "take off the gloves" when dealing with them -- ditch the FMJs, and forget about those rules that don't apply to criminals. OTOH, there are still some Bathist/Taliban military cadre that are operating with the terrorists, and their status is questionable. With that in mind, one could make the case that since a few of the opponents might be covered by the rules of warefare, we are better off being conservative and sticking with the more conventional armaments. __________________ COME AND TAKE IT http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/batgon.htm Formerly lived in Ga, but now I'm back in Tx! Aaaand, now I'm off to Fla...

June 2, 2005, 10:55 AM	#10
tanstaafl4y Senior Member Join Date: November 6, 2004 Location: Virginia Posts: 136	I voted FMJ also. I'm former Active duty Army (medically discharged) and a vet of the Klinton Campaings and Afganistan. The Theory that its better to shoot and wound applies best ina traditional warfare senario where the BG will carry his wounded buddy home (taking 2 BG's out of the conflict temporarily). But what I've seen in our current operations is that the BG will leave a wounded buddy for 2 reasons; 1) He's only worried about his own skin and 2) The wounded will recieve better medical care from US forces. Our current adversaries tend NOT to use body armor or other military equipment (maybe a LBE type ammo belt/vest) but do hide behind mud walls and inside of lightskinned vehicles. If I could change anything it would be the weapon distribution within the US Forces. A standard MP Squad carries 7 M-4's(5.56) 3 M-249 MG (5.56) 3 40mm Grenade Launchers(on M-4) and 3 MK-19 MG (40mm) and 10 M-9 (9mm) Pistols. I would replace two of the MK-19's with a M2 50cal and one of the Saws with a 240b (in 7.62). I think this would give a more rounded offensive/defensive capability to an MP Squad. I use MP's as an example because its one of the 2 MOS's I've held and aslo because the MP are slowly becoming the workhorse for "Operations Other Than War" and "Light Intensity Conflict" Just my $.02 __________________ "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" -popularized by Sci-Fi author Robert A Heinlein

June 2, 2005, 03:19 PM	#12
Eghad Senior Member Join Date: May 28, 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 6,231	FMJ. Penetration and feeding reliability. x2 __________________ Have a nice day at the range NRA Life Member

June 2, 2005, 02:15 AM	#3
Stiletto Senior Member Join Date: March 9, 2005 Posts: 388	Great for the bean counters at home, not so great for the troops who are pumping bullets in and still getting return fire. I vote FMJ anyway, though, since body armor is becoming increasingly common.

June 2, 2005, 10:50 AM	#6
bclark1 Senior Member Join Date: January 5, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,531	In our current conflicts, I say JSP. Balance penetration and expansion, we're facing unarmored targets more often than not, and it's not like most of these groups do much in terms of expensive care for their wounded so I think we should be shooting to kill. Against better equipped and standing armies that might have armor, definitely FMJ. Hague is crap, I know some people say we need to be the better people, but I think combatants should earn the treatment they get. If they're throwing rough stuff at us and treating our captured guys like crap I think we ought to return the favor. It's not like all the humanitarian aid we've given them to date has changed any minds that our society is evil and must be destroyed anyway. Fundamentalists will be fundamentalists whether we're shooting bean bags or incendiaries at them. But I digress.

June 2, 2005, 10:51 AM	#7
Mike40-11 Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2005 Location: Missouri Posts: 842	FMJ. Penetration and feeding reliability. I realize modern JHPs come close in these aspects but, when dealing with the Army, simpler is always better.

June 2, 2005, 10:52 AM	#8
Full Metal Jacket Senior Member Join Date: December 8, 2004 Posts: 260	Here's something to consider- wouldn't carrying all these JHPs through harsh environments like the desert (like in Iraq) clog the hollow cavities with sand, mud, grime, etc. , rendering them ineffective? Would they cost more to produce than FMJ?

June 2, 2005, 10:53 AM	#9
chaim Senior Member Join Date: December 11, 2001 Location: Maryland Posts: 2,095	For rifle, FMJ. Better penatration, and to wound a man does take more out of action than to kill a man (medics, stretcher bearers, doctors, etc). Maybe as a close second choice JSP, especially since we are using a pretty small caliber. Definately not JHP though, I want penatration. For anything full auto, FMJ. Better feeding=more reliable. For handguns, JHP. Handguns aren't particularly good man-stoppers as it is, give them every advantage possible. Worst case, it was mentioned in a prior post "what if in a combat environment the HP gets clogged", well then it is basically a FMJ. You never lose anything to a FMJ and it is worth a few more cents per round to have a more effective round when it does perform correctly.

June 2, 2005, 01:18 PM	#11
ATW525 Senior Member Join Date: March 14, 2005 Location: Concord, NH Posts: 2,723	I put my vote in for FMJ. In a wartime combat situation the need to penetrate potential types of cover, load bearing equipment and even body armor is more real than a typical self-defense situation at the local Stop & Rob.

June 2, 2005, 03:40 PM	#13
OHMRMP Member Join Date: May 30, 2005 Location: NE Ohio Posts: 24	other.... Blended Metal ammunition. Can penetrate body armor, yet causes tremendous damage as soon as it impacts flesh. A BL round, aka Armor Piercing-Limited Penetration (AP-LP) rounds, are heat sensitive, the round "senses" a cool armor plate and stays cold, and penetrates. But as soon as it hits warm flesh, the projectile, for the lack of a better word, "explodes." It rapidly expands and fragments in all directions, literally blowing apart flesh. Pretty nasty stuff. However a friendly-fire incident with said ammo would be terrible, as if fratricide isn't terrible enough. Second choice would have to be the tried and true FMJ, 55gr M193s preferable, 62gr M855 third, and lastly the 77gr Open Tip M262 Mod 0 and Mod 1s the USSOCOM's been using lately.

June 2, 2005, 03:47 PM	#14
BatmanX Senior Member Join Date: March 23, 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 266	OHMRMP: I was having a hard time finding people that had heard/read about those rounds. Glad I didn't dream them up! Those rounds are scary as hell! __________________ NRA Life Member Current shopping list: Bersa Thunder 9mm CZ SP01 Current Ownage: CZ-P01 Bersa .380 (Duo tone) Kel Tec P3AT (SG) Stoeger 2000 (black syn.) 26" Winchester Model 97 12 gauge FULL Marlin Firearms Model 60 22LR

June 2, 2005, 03:52 PM	#15
OHMRMP Member Join Date: May 30, 2005 Location: NE Ohio Posts: 24	Also due to the heat sensitivity, they apparently won't pass through more than a few layers of drywall, which could make them useful in areas where one would normally employ an SMG to avoid over-penetration. Good for urban operations.

June 12, 2005, 10:18 PM	#17
Thx1138 Member Join Date: April 13, 2005 Posts: 20	Jsp I am an activated reservist and I want the Baathist/Jihaadist scum to go down like he was hit by a 50 cal round. I do not want to wound him to live to fight again. I vote JSP. I am not sure how much a 5.56 mm round expands but the more the better. I would like to use blended metal rounds myself.

June 12, 2005, 11:24 PM	#18
Crosshair Senior Member Join Date: December 16, 2004 Location: Grand Forks, ND Posts: 5,333	I voted HP. 1. SP ammo can get dinged up too easy. 2. We never ratified the Hague Convention. 3. HP penetrates as well as Ball. AP is overkill in 5.56. I got a chance to talk with someone who knows quite a bit about the Blended Metal bullets. He said that there are many advantages to them but there are a few issues that he specificly mentioned. 1. Long term storage. 2. Mass production and QC issues. 3. Cost. Overall he thought they would be excellent in specialized uses like snipers and Special Forces. But that it would be a bad idea to make them general issue to the military. What would happen if the armor was 90+ F like can happen in the desert sun. Would we just be shooting powder at them then?

June 13, 2005, 10:33 AM	#19
Impact of Reason Senior Member Join Date: May 13, 2005 Location: nacogdoches, texas Posts: 205	any one of these would be good choices, depending on the situation. IMO the military should stock multiple types of ammunition so the soldier could just grab whatever he thinks he needs for his situation. __________________ Those who believe in gun control think that we don't need guns to protect us against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, and the government should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments of that Constitution, thereby becoming an oppressive government.

June 13, 2005, 02:23 PM	#20
625 Senior Member Join Date: May 3, 2005 Location: PA Posts: 858	fmj for rifle. hp for pistol. __________________ I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves. Ronald Reagan

June 13, 2005, 02:56 PM	#21
stevelyn Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: Fairbanksan in exile to Aleutian Hell Posts: 2,655	FMJ. We're not only shooting bad guys. We're shooting bad guys behind barriers and shooting up equipment. The ammo we issue has to balance all of these traits and feed reliably in guns manufactured by the lowest bidder. Perhaps to enhance performance on human targets, the bullet could be destablized a bit by decreasing the twist rate of the rifling slightly. __________________ Stop Allowing Our Schools To Be Soft Targets! http://fastersaveslives.org/ East Moose. Wear Wolf.

June 14, 2005, 12:28 AM	#22
Crosshair Senior Member Join Date: December 16, 2004 Location: Grand Forks, ND Posts: 5,333	5.56 has never had a very good record for heavy barrier penitration stevelyn and good HP ammo penitrates barriers almost as good and has better terminal balistics. But I think 625 has given me an idea, with the belted 5.56 and 7.62 ammo our SAW's and GPMG's use we could simply mix HP and FMJ ammo together in the belt. Since we do this with tracers already it would be rather simple to do so. But now as I think about it, we probably wouldn't need to do it with the 7.62 ammo as penitration with 7.62 would not be gratly impared with HP ammo. Though it would probably be a good idea to mix in AP ammo for needed penitration. You should use 7.62 to make those pesky barriers disapear then get them with the 5.56 when they move from cover. If 7.62 is unavailable, then apply gernades where needed. BTW is the safety on the M203 as bad as I have heard it to be?

June 14, 2005, 06:33 PM	#23
stevelyn Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: Fairbanksan in exile to Aleutian Hell Posts: 2,655	Crosshair, I wasn't talking about heavy barriers. Heavy barriers get the chain gun or shoulder fired rocket treatment. I'm talking about punching through cars, walls, doors and windows. __________________ Stop Allowing Our Schools To Be Soft Targets! http://fastersaveslives.org/ East Moose. Wear Wolf.

June 14, 2005, 06:59 PM	#24
Crosshair Senior Member Join Date: December 16, 2004 Location: Grand Forks, ND Posts: 5,333	stevelyn OK, I see you're point. Then perhaps we can ditch this steel core ammo that doesn't like to fragment and go with a simple lead core FMJ bullet. It will still penitrate the barriers you mentioned, but more readily fragment inside the body. We can keep the steel core ammo on hand in case we need it for some reason. I think Impact of Reason is right. Keep different kinds of ammo on hand for different uses. All the ammo will work in the same weapon, you will just be able to use the ammo that best suits the situation.

June 14, 2005, 07:06 PM	#25
Limeyfellow Senior Member Join Date: May 31, 2005 Posts: 1,380	The new combat armour isn't as good as its made out to be. Theres been big problems with it, that 9mm ammo had punched straight through the armour multiple times, and even though it was rejected as safe, it was still sent into combat to keep the likes of the Marines safe from shrapnel. FMJ is going to go nicely through most the body armour currently used. We also seen more body armour along with things like the latest generation of nightvision from the US and new equipment used by our enemies, that the extra penetration power of a FMJ still made more sense than changing it.