USMC to now use open tip 5.56 rounds.

[F-15 Eagle]

The US Marines will be be deploying with new 62 gr open tip 5.56 ammo to replace the M855 to get deadlier rifle rounds out of the short barrel M4 carbine

Check out the link: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan - MarineCorpsTimes.com

Just a random question, I see the new SOST rounds will have reduce muzzle flash, would anyone happen to know why or how? And will that impact how much noise is generated from firing?

 

[Marc 1]

The US Marines will be be deploying with new 62 gr open tip 5.56 ammo to replace the M855 to get deadlier rifle rounds out of the short barrel M4 carbine

Check out the link: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan - MarineCorpsTimes.com

Just a random question, I see the new SOST rounds will have reduce muzzle flash, would anyone happen to know why or how? And will that impact how much noise is generated from firing?

I'm no expert here on this but one possible reason is that they could be using a faster burning propellant. If the propellant is fully burnt then there would be more hot gasses leaving the barrel, less propellant still being burnt when the projectile leaves the muzzle. The earlier loadings were probably optimised for the M16A1 - longer barrel, slower burning propellant.

 

[riksavage]

The US Marines will be be deploying with new 62 gr open tip 5.56 ammo to replace the M855 to get deadlier rifle rounds out of the short barrel M4 carbine

Check out the link: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan - MarineCorpsTimes.com

Just a random question, I see the new SOST rounds will have reduce muzzle flash, would anyone happen to know why or how? And will that impact how much noise is generated from firing?

Little known fact - technically this move is a breach of the Geneva Convention! Hollowpoint rounds fall under the old Dumdum category, which is listed as forbidden fruit under the convention. Law enforcement units don't fall under the same category hence the wide use of hydrashock and similar expanding ammunition.

 

[kato]

Not Geneva. 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets. "bullets with a hard envelope [...] pierced with incisions".

Similar copout routine as with Geneva though (Afghanistan didn't sign it).

 

[raider1]

The international law questions are answered in the link in the original post... "open-tip" rounds are considered different from "hollow-point" rounds... HP rounds expand in flesh, open tip do not...

The lower muzzle flash can be achieved by adjusting the propellant compunds / mix, I'm no expert on that so I can't tell you exactly how... Also in the article, it says the rounds were actually developed for the SCAR-L, which has a shorter barrel (13.8 inches) than the M-4 (14.5 inches) and the M-16A4 (20 inches,) which is still the standard issue rifle for the USMC (Marine truck drivers and other second echelon troops who need a shorter barrel than the standard M-16 are issued M-4s) Anyway, the use of the round in longer barrels can also contribute to the lower muzzle flash, as the longer the barrel, the more powder can be burnt up before the bullet reaches the muzzle...

An interesting question I have with this is will the longer barrels will increase terminal ballistics (wound ballistics,) since the bullet will leave a longer barrel at a higher velocity than in the shorter barrel... If this holds true, then using this round in the M-4 and especially the M-16A4 should really knock the crap out of the bad guys, even better than in the SCAR-L... I hope to be able to see some kind of documents on the results in the near future (ASAP)

 

[Kashif2009]

The new SOST ammo was first developed for use by SOCOM (Special Operations) in the SCAR rifle, which has a short, 13.8″ barrel. Even in short-barreled rifles, the SOST provides impressive ballistics — achieving 2925 fps in a 14″ barrel. Compared to M855 ball ammo, SOST rounds are more lethal when shot from short-barreled rifles. According to the Marine Times, SOST ammunition delivers “consistent, rapid fragmentation which shortens the time required to cause incapacitation of enemy combatants”. Using an open-tip design common with some sniper ammunition, SOST rounds are designed to be “barrier blind”, meaning they stay on target better than existing M855 rounds after penetrating windshields, car doors and other objects. This is important to troops in the Middle Eastern theater who must engage insurgents inside vehicles or hiding behind barriers.

In Afghanistan, the USMC will issue SOST ammo for both the short-barreled M4 carbine as well as the original, full-length M16A4. 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.

M855 Criticized by Ground Troops and Pentagon Testers
The standard Marine 5.56 round, the M855, was developed in the 1970s and approved as an official NATO round in 1980. In recent years, however, it has been the subject of widespread criticism from troops, who question whether it has enough punch to stop oncoming enemies.

In 2002, shortcomings in the M855’s performance were detailed in a report by Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane, Ind., according to Navy Department documents. Additional testing in 2005 showed shortcomings. The Pentagon issued a request to industry for improved ammunition the following year

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Little known fact - technically this move is a breach of the Geneva Convention! Hollowpoint rounds fall under the old Dumdum category, which is listed as forbidden fruit under the convention. Law enforcement units don't fall under the same category hence the wide use of hydrashock and similar expanding ammunition.

Open tips are not hollow point please don't mistake the two and no it does not brake any laws issuing these to ground troops.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The lower muzzle flash can be achieved by adjusting the propellant compunds / mix, I'm no expert on that so I can't tell you exactly how...

Its a type of flash suppressant powder I think. Does not reduce noise though....for that you still need a suppressor.

BTW I thought the flash suppressor on the end of the barrels of their M4s already got rid of most of the flash?

 

[raider1]

The issued, A2 flash suppressor on M-i6 type rifles is horrible at it's job... It puts out a huge amount of flash compared to more modern types... The best one I've seen has been the Vortex systems from Smith Enterprises...

Vortex® Flash*Eliminators: Smith Enterprise, Inc.

They virtually eliminate all flash, leaving only a small dot... I have seen a video comparing the Vortex with the A2 style at night, and the flash from the A2 looks like the sun, whereas the flash from the Vortex looks like a penlight...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TPpsIw7IwE]YouTube - Vortex Flash Hider (Birdcage replacement)[/ame]

Also, on the Smith Enterprise website, there is a link to pay for a Vortex, which gets shipped to a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan, apparently at least the Army is allowing them to be installed, maybe just with SF or other SpecOps units, I'm not totally sure... I bought one to support or troops... It's a very good cause and could save someone's life...

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The issued, A2 flash suppressor on M-i6 type rifles is horrible at it's job... It puts out a huge amount of flash compared to more modern types... The best one I've seen has been the Vortex systems from Smith Enterprises...


They virtually eliminate all flash, leaving only a small dot... I have seen a video comparing the Vortex with the A2 style at night, and the flash from the A2 looks like the sun, whereas the flash from the Vortex looks like a penlight...

I like that hopefully they get more of those vortex flash hiders out in the field. That will make out troops less visible especially at night.

However there is still the noise problem getting rid of the flash is one thing but they still have to deal with all that damn noise when firing and the enemy can still pin point their location.

 

[raider1]

I like that hopefully they get more of those vortex flash hiders out in the field. That will make out troops less visible especially at night.

However there is still the noise problem getting rid of the flash is one thing but they still have to deal with all that damn noise when firing and the enemy can still pin point their location.

Unfortunately, it's 99.9% impossible to eliminate the noise from firing a weapon without using some kind of noice suppressor (Hollywood speak: Silencer,) and even then, a suppressor doesn't eliminate all noise... Even BB guns make noise when they are fired. The drawbacks to using a noise suppressor is it can reduce range and velocity, and make for a longer weapon. So, to have a "handy" weapon to use, you would have to start out with a shorter barrel, which sacrifices range and velocity, then put the noise suppressor on, which sacrifices more range and velocity. Plus, the amount of rounds fired in a full auto weapon during combat can shoot out the guts of a noise suppressor, so it would have to be replaced by a new one and rebuilt if possible (Our military would most likely throw it in the garbage, though.) There are some new suppressor designs out there that work more effectively than older designs, though, but even they have some noise escape. Flash hiders can decrease noise, though, and the more efficient flash hiders can significantly reduce noise, not to the point of being stealthy, but you can definitely tell the difference when shooting a rifle without a flash hider, then shooting one with a flash hider...

In Close Quarters Battle, an Urban setting, or Hostage Rescue, noise suppressors are golden, because alot of the firing is inside and/or at closer ranges, so the suppressor's effect on range and velocity aren't as big of an issue, and the reduction in noise is a God send... Many Police Department tactical teams are discovering this now, and are buying noise suppressors for their long-guns. Of course, the SpecOps community in the military uses silencers alot, but their budget and rules are totally different than the conventional military. The military, in general, I think sees the effects of a noise suppressor on a general issue rifles as negligible and irrelevant on a large scale (general issue.) I do not claim to know all the reasons why the the Miltary doesn't use them on a large scale, I searched for information on this and could not find anything, unfortunately... Maybe it's something in the Geneva Conventions or International law...

Anyone who has more information on this, please share

As for getting more Vortex flash suppressors to the troops, we can help... Here is the link for the Vortex donation program:

[email protected]

Phone number if problems with link: 775-884-4430.

Hopefully a lot of you guys on here will help, when I paid for one, it was right around $30 US dollars to have a Vortex sent to the troops...

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Flash hiders can decrease noise, though, and the more efficient flash hiders can significantly reduce noise, not to the point of being stealthy, but you can definitely tell the difference when shooting a rifle without a flash hider, then shooting one with a flash hider...

I agree with you except for this one part, flash highers do reduce the flash especially the vortex but they do not reduce noise, to me they don't seam to have an effect on noise however a true muzzle brake compensator like on the AK-74 will actually increase noise by redirecting it back towards the shooter.

Without one the noise is still the same but is pushed forwards down range more and less of it goes to the shooters.

 

[kato]

Open tips are not hollow point

However, they are most definitely "bullets with a hard envelope pierced with incisions". Which are banned, see the link i gave above. While obviously the law by spirit meant only banning incisions specifically intended to "slam open" upon impact, by letter it covers any bullets that do not have a full envelope.

The M118LR round shown in this pic was banned by the US military temporarily, but is now being issued again. Open-tip ammunition has been used since Vietnam, and its use by the US military is nowadays justified by them through the IL Branch JAG saying they are ok in 1990 (back then: M852).
Of course, the USMC also mixes up a lot in their justifications for issuing open-tip ammo, e.g. by saying "it has been proven not to cause superfluous injury", which is of course a whole 'nother issue from the ban of expanding ammunition. In a legal sense, it does make them look rather unprofessional.

 

[Chino]

During the Vietnam War, the VC actually feared the 5.56 M193 round fired from the M16A1 as it causes terrible wounds.

Apparently, the current crop of rifles and the M855 round doesn't do that anymore.

And my layman understanding is that the M855 is designed to penetrate body armour. But the enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq don't usually wear body armour.

I have always said that we need to look at the variables like bullet type, weight etc before we decide to change the calibre. And therefore it is now very interesting to see the USMC doing exactly that. And the combat results with this open tip round will determine is the 5.56 lives on or not.

 

[Firn]

Kato already adressed the legal points. I also think that the arguments offered in the linked article are rather weak. Their questionable interpretation can easily be streched ad absurdum.

To the bullets. Without broad and deep experimentation nobody can say just how it performs against various standardized targets. The open tip is obviously designed to force the frontal part to fragment and/or mushroom. We do not know if the lead core is bonded to the jacket. Bonding as well as a thick jacket would decrease the tendency to fragment. To my unschooled eye it seems that strong fragmentation seems not have been the first priority, but without hard data it is very difficult to get that right.

Hard targets at short ranges might still mean very considerable fragmentation. At longer ranges and softer targets the trend will go towards mushrooming. The long copper shank should give the round considerable penetration, through bones and hard materials as well treated copper hardly fragments. In this regard the moniker "barrier-blind" has not been too ill-chosen.


Firn

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I'm just curious if anyone knows what the powder load for the new MK318 round will be?

If the round uses a different powder with a different burning rate, has the powder charge been affected over the current M855 NATO round?

Anyone know a thing or two about loading mil spec ammo?

they say they can get a 62 gr 5.56 round at 2925 fps out of a 14 1/2 in barrel M4 or SCAR-L, so just wondering what kind and how much powder are they using?

 

[lobbie111]

I don't get what any of your are saying about the need for reducing noise, while reducing noise is a tactical advantage, in full swing of a battle there would simply be too much noise for any precise locating of weapons, while this differs for units preforming covert tactical ops where suprise and stealth is key.

Bottom line is not even snipers use suppresors and when they do it's not usually for reducing their signature, its just so they dont have to wear ear muffs and they can hear if someones sneaking up behind them. Reducing ammunition noise is good if your hunting but has no effect in battle.

As far as I know, troops are trained to find muzzle flashes as sound can be decptive bouncing off walls etc.

 

[OPSSG]

they dont have to wear ear muffs and they can hear if someones sneaking up behind them.

Just a quick note to let new forum members know that (and I'm sure you already know this), as a general rule, soldiers can hear through our ear protection or ear plugs (so no sneaking up on us - unless the EN are totally silent). Often times, we do not use the ear muffs that civilians use at the range. There are some armies that issue pretty fancy, custom fitted 'ear plugs' for Afghanistan (click here for more info).

AFAIK, most soldiers do often wear ear protection to protect their hearing, so that they can continue to hear after a fire fight (I lost my hearing for about a day once due to someone firing very close to my ear by accident - I was quite angry with him for doing that).

BTW, sound suppressed weapons may be issued in certain roles (and some types of recon troopers like LRRPs may have it issued to a member of their team) but for the average grunt (like I was), we either use the cover of darkness or stealth to get into position. Once we go noisy, it's full on section/platoon/company action. And once the support weapons open up, it's loud - at that stage there is more concern about suppressing the EN to enable us to move to close in on the EN in-contact (via flanking or other approaches). There's only so long a grunt can delay going noisy because the grunt's role is to seek out the EN and fight them.

With that said, shall we go back on topic?

Cheers and have fun discussing.

 

[old faithful]

Just a short note on flash surpressors.
flash surpessors are designed to reduce the muzzle flash FOR THE SHOOTERS benefit. They are not designed to help hide the shooter, but to aid him retaining his night vison, and to help him get a bead on the target with out him having the "camera flash dots in his eyes."after fireing in low light conditions.
About dumdum, hollow point or .50 cal use against troops, and conventions and rules etc etc....Im not certain, but pretty sure that strapping explosives to ones self and blowing yourself up in a crowded market place, killing indescrimintly in the name of God, is also against international rules of war, pretty sure that highjacking civillian airliners, and crashing them into civillian targets is also frowned upon. I hope the US marines have a great success story with their open tip ammo, good luck to them all, and hope you guys get some kills up with it.

 

[Ray17]

I wonder if two wrongs make it a right.

The terrorists are most despicable, notwithstaning their holy 'ideal' of killing in the name of God.

Yet, on the other hand, Dick Cheneys Defence Policy Guidelines that he formulated as Secretary for Defence enunciates and proposes using "issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars" to push for an American foreign policy that would "shape a new century favourable to American principles and interests".

Defence Policy Guidelines

Therefore, one must adhere to American principles and interest is my opinion and I hope I am not wrong.

These bullets as with the Dum Dum bullet would kill in a very painful manner!

I concede it is debatable. Must we show humane behaviour to the enemy? But then if they also start using such bullets, what happens to us and friendly forces?

Though The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in international warfare of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body, giving as example a bullet with a jacket with incisions or one that does not fully cover the core as the Dum Dum bullet (to which I think the US is not a signatory) the Convention bans this type of bullet, yet there is grey area for interpretation.