The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 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)
Full Metal Jacket is offline  
Old June 2, 2005, 01:56 AM   #2
Sum1_Special
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2005
Posts: 243
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.
Sum1_Special is offline  
Old 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.
Stiletto is offline  
Old June 2, 2005, 04:25 AM   #4
IZinterrogator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 8, 2004
Location: Pierce County, WA
Posts: 2,446
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.
__________________
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” - Samuel Adams
IZinterrogator is offline  
Old June 2, 2005, 10:36 AM   #5
gb_in_ga
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2005
Location: Wylie, Tx
Posts: 2,993
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!
gb_in_ga is offline  
Old 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.
bclark1 is offline  
Old June 2, 2005, 10:51 AM   #7
Mike40-11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 798
FMJ. Penetration and feeding reliability.

I realize modern JHPs come close in these aspects but, when dealing with the Army, simpler is always better.
Mike40-11 is offline  
Old 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?
Full Metal Jacket is offline  
Old June 2, 2005, 10:53 AM   #9
chaim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 11, 2001
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,539
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.
chaim is offline  
Old 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
tanstaafl4y is offline  
Old June 2, 2005, 01:18 PM   #11
ATW525
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,688
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.
ATW525 is offline  
Old 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
Eghad is offline  
Old 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.
OHMRMP is offline  
Old 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
BatmanX is offline  
Old 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.
OHMRMP is offline  
Old June 3, 2005, 05:02 AM   #16
seeker_two
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2002
Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
Posts: 1,672
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)....
__________________
Proud member of Gun Culture 2.0......
seeker_two is offline  
Old 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.
Thx1138 is offline  
Old June 12, 2005, 11:24 PM   #18
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
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?
Crosshair is offline  
Old 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.
Impact of Reason is offline  
Old 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
625 is offline  
Old June 13, 2005, 02:56 PM   #21
stevelyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: Fairbanksan in exile to Aleutian Hell
Posts: 2,616
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.
__________________
Herman Cain '12

Squished bugs on a windshield is proof the slow/heavy bullet theory works.
stevelyn is offline  
Old June 14, 2005, 12:28 AM   #22
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
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?
Crosshair is offline  
Old June 14, 2005, 06:33 PM   #23
stevelyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: Fairbanksan in exile to Aleutian Hell
Posts: 2,616
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.
__________________
Herman Cain '12

Squished bugs on a windshield is proof the slow/heavy bullet theory works.
stevelyn is offline  
Old June 14, 2005, 06:59 PM   #24
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
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.
Crosshair is offline  
Old 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.
Limeyfellow is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13309 seconds with 8 queries