saving private ryan

[motto (RIP)]

Hi Tony

The reason I emphasised the statement FOR PURELY BALLISTIC REASONS was because of the tipped bullets you mention. They are intended for sporting use and the tip is part of the controlled expansion desired on impact. (Animals not being signatories to the Hague or Geneva conventions, this is allowable) As such the tip is NOT there for purely ballistic reasons. These tips are also exposed which is where the ballistic part comes in, they complete the bullets shaping in contrast to that of an exposed hollow point.

I clearly recall the controversy over the 5.56 ammunition .Stability in flight is controllable by twist rate which means that a bullet can be spun too fast with consequences at the end of flight which some believe to be the case with the 5.56 and its relatively short bullet. The development of the SS109 projectile was an attempt to answer deficiencies in performance of the standard bullet.

Basically, as I understand it, the heavy .303 projectile was too good at penetration, the lighter 5.56 not good enough. Different problems, different solutions. You may be able to help me out here Mike. I believe you are familiar with the SS109 story. I also understand that the 5.56 is not performing well against the opposition in Afghanistan despite the improved projectile.

David

[Mike Cecil]

I can add a little: as I understand it, the 5.56 was not performing well at the distances of typical engagements in Iraq and Afgh. US Forces started reaching for the M14 (7.62mm) because of its greater reach and knock-down power. The Aust Army purchased a series of sniper rifles in heavier calibres to cover the intermediate range of engagements incl .338 Lapua. I have a DVD somewhere of a brief given by DMO about the acquisitions.

This was not a new 'problem': the same difficulty of not enough knock-down power was also experienced in SVN in the late 60s.It came up several times in interviews I conducted with veterans of SVN.

It may lead to the adoption a new improved calibre once the F88 fleet reaches LOT (life of type) in 2020 or 2025. Remember that the 5.56 was simply a light game hunting round in its earliest form, not developed from scratch as a military round.

Mike C

[easo]

I did rear somewhere that the US was implementing environmentally friendly "steel core" ammo. It also gives it more penetration at longer ranges.

Easo

[Mike Cecil]

Easo,

Steel core or steel penetrator ammo for 5.56 has been around for many years: the SS109 (M855) has a steel penetrator (so I suppose it has a lighter 'nose' with the CofG toward the rear where the lead slug is?). It was a longer (23mm compared to 19.3mm) and heavier (62 grains compared to 56 grains) than the earlier Vietnam-era M193 Ball ammunition, with less tendency to breakup or deviate on impact. The MV was also smaller (3025fps compared to 3250fps, new rifle at 75 feet from the muzzle).[figures from TM43-0001-27: Army Ammunition Data Sheets Small Caliber Ammunition FSC1305] Initially, the M193 was retained (while stock lasted?) and the M855 was issued in belts only for the M249E1 SAW.

What the US adopted was a 5.56 projectile that uses a steel penetrator and less lead, substituting an alloy of some sort. This is the recently introduced M855A1. I don't have specs at hand to compare it to the M855.

So I suppose its OK to use Uranium depleted rounds on AFVs etc, but more environmentally friendly to use lower/none lead Ball ammo. Hmmm.... kinda makes as much sense to me as the Poms 'sanitizing' the wood plug in their .303 rounds to avoid infection of the gaping wound it caused.

Mike C

[motto (RIP)]

The sanitising of the wooden plug Mike is a very interesting point. The only way for the wood to be exposed is for the bullet to break up. It seems as though this was expected to happen. I've seen enough of them do that however it hadn't really registered as I was focused on the tumbling and of course the breaking up is as a consequence of that. Curiouser and curiouser?

Dave