Uh…what do you think SOST/TOTM (Mk318 Mod0, Mk319 Mod0), Optimal/“browntip”, the TSWG loads, etc… are all about???
Honestly, I don’t know anything about the expansion properties of those loads.
Are you saying that those bullets produce minimal expansion and end up with a wadcutterlike profile?
No. I am stating that these are non-fragmenting projectiles that offer outstanding incapacitation effects, yet they have been adjudicated to be law of warfare compliant munitions legal for use in all conflicts.
FWIW, the info in the link about the ICRC referenced above is a steaming pile of excrement…
No. I am stating that these are non-fragmenting projectiles that offer outstanding incapacitation effects, yet they have been adjudicated to be law of warfare compliant munitions legal for use in all conflicts.
Interesting, up until now I thought all of the improved 5.56 depended on fragmentation for effectiveness. Early yaw and longer bullets must be what is in play with these new rounds.
FWIW, the info in the link about the ICRC referenced above is a steaming pile of excrement…
Yes, and I’m sure that they will keep throwing it up against the wall hoping it will stick.
Originally Posted by DocGKR
Uh…what do you think SOST/TOTM (Mk318 Mod0, Mk319 Mod0), Optimal/“browntip”, the TSWG loads, etc… are all about???
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/02/marine_SOST_ammo_021510w/
Compared to the M855, SOST rounds also stay on target longer in open air and have increased stopping power through “consistent, rapid fragmentation which shortens the time required to cause incapacitation of enemy combatants,” according to Navy Department documents. At 62 grains, they weigh about the same as most NATO rounds, have a typical lead core with a solid copper shank and are considered a variation of Federal Cartridge Co.’s Federal Trophy Bonded Bear Claw round, which was developed for big-game hunting and is touted in a company news release for its ability to crush bone.
Conflicting information here.
No conflict at all; SOST/TOTM is a family of projectiles–the Mod 0 version does indeed have some of fragmentation, but other versions do not, as noted on page 12 here. Substituting the word “upset” in place of “fragmentation” in the quote referenced above, offers a more universal description of the key component of the SOST/TOTM design effectiveness.
What I cant seem to fathom is why companies keep producing soft point barrier blind/expanding bullets when a hollow point bullet can be just as effective, so one does not have to worry about feeding issues when shooting soft point ammo in volume.
I just want some tungsten core 6.8mm bullets 
Excuse me if I ask:
Are the Mk318 and Mk319 designed to expand on impact, as well as good weight retention for increased penetration?
The bullet has an open tip with lead almost filling it for construction purposes, the OTM is not an issue here like the JAG approved SMK bullets that have variable fragmentation qualities and are velocity dependant.
In page 21
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniii8524.pdf
“Front of bullet is designed to help defeat barrier
Back of bullet is solid copper and acts as a rear penetrator”
It seems clear the designer looked for reliable expansion as well as penetration. After all, they are an evolution of similar bullets designed for hunting.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf (pages 11 and 12)
If so, how can they comply with Hague “The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.”
“Are the Mk318 and Mk319 designed to expand on impact, as well as good weight retention for increased penetration?”
No, as succinctly noted on page 19 of the document you quoted, the SOST loads are designed to meet DOD’s clearly stated and legally validated requirement for projectiles that are blind to barriers.
“It seems clear the designer looked for reliable expansion as well as penetration.”
That does not seem clear to me at all. What is clear is that the projectiles were designed so that:
– Front of bullet is designed to help defeat barrier.
– Back of bullet is solid copper and acts as a rear penetrator
No where does it say the bullet was designed to expand.
“After all, they are an evolution of similar bullets designed for hunting.”
Hmmm…the Crane briefing says something different, in fact stating that the, “New projectile developed from technology utilized in current law enforcement projectile” and makes no mention about SOST being an evolution of hunting bullets.
Of course, all this is moot, as the U.S. thankfully is not a signatory or contracting party to the Hague Convention of 1899…
Sir,
apart the real behaviour in tissues of such bullets…
…strictly speaking about the war that involves now the western armies(…mostly US…)…I guess that bullets that expand or flatten are not against the Hague agreement…in fact the latter concerns war between armies…and not warfare against insurgents, bandits and so on…
All the best
Andrea
Andrea, JAG declared this bullet Hague compliant… legal for use against anyone.
Now, I’m the first to say that the Hague accords are not well worded and obsolete.
I know that USA is not a signatary state.
I know that it covers armament used in wars between signatary states, not irregular armies, bandits or terrorists.
It seems that currently nobody (or at least no country) has intentions of arguing too much about these bullets with USA. This may change in the future when/if their soldiers are exposed to them…
BUT, this bullet is clearly designed for fast and controlled expansion and penetration, and this is very clearly opposed to both spirit and wording of this law, no matter how you spin it. I’m sure DocGKR know this and have many pictures of the consistently expanded points.
JAG may say what they want, but it is an opinion by an interested party, not a ruling from an international court. No other country issues expanding bullets for normal military use, and many european countries have actually redesigned their FMJ bullets so that they do not fragment on impact (like M193 and M885), understanding that this is the spirit of the law.
Take a look here:
https://www.neco.navy.mil/synopsis_file/N0016409CJN58_N00164_09116_NECO.pdf
“The cartridges were designed for improved intermediate barrier performance auto gIass and doors, improved and consistent accuracy 2 minutes of angle MOA or better, flash reduced propellant, and improved terminal performance, consistent rapid fragmentation which shortens the time required to cause incapacitation of enemy combatant.”
“The MK 318 MOD0 and MK 319 MOD0 cartridge designs are a variation of the Federal Trophy Bonded Bear Claw round developedby Federal Cartridge for large game hunting”
“These cartridges were specifically designed to optimize performance even when fired in the shorter barreled carbines to exhibit consistent and enhanced accuracy, to use much improved temperature stable
propellant with flash retardant for enhanced intermediate barrier defeat capability such as auto glass and doors, and to enhanced terminal performance against unarmored soft targets. Most importantly the desing of both cartridges causes them to be non yaw dependant. Not only is the terminal performance is tremendously enhanced, but is also extremely consistent.”
TiroFijo,
my previous statement is about what’s legal and what’s not…and not about the behaviour of such bullets…
…I guess that to be considered legal in war against armies such bullet behaviour needs to be similar to that of previous military bullets designs…where the fragmentation happens because the effects on the bullet at full yaw by the load of soft tissues…and not because the load on the nose when point forward in the first cm of penetration like the hunting rounds…
…I need to tell you that I don’t know for sure how it works but the statement that it’s not yaw sensitive makes me a bit suspicious…
…maybe a pic of such bullet in flight after a 2" BG slice penetration can be useful…
…I guess too that insurgents are not so preoccupied about the international agreements on warfare…
All the best
Andrea
Andrea,
In page 11
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf
you can see the bullet profile of the prototype (it was 77 gr then, now is 62 gr for better ballistic match with M885), and the expanded bullet.
I’m sure DocGKR can provide other pictures of recovered bullets if it is not classified. Otherwise, to have a pretty good idea just look at expanded bullets of fairly similar construction like Federal LE and hunting bullets based on the trophy bonded bear (DocGKR said the mil bullets are not bonded for cost reasons).
this bullet is clearly designed for fast and controlled expansion and penetration, and this is very clearly opposed to both spirit and wording of this law, no matter how you spin it.
It sounds like a soft point Nosler Partition type of design except for there being no lead in the rear half.
A bullet that flattens somewhat would seem more conservative than one that splits and then fragments, sending pieces in all directions along the wound track.
I would think that humanitarians would feel that a fragmenting bullet is more sinister than a bullet that slightly flattens it’s nose to achieve effectiveness.
“Most importantly the design of both cartridges causes them to be non yaw dependant. Not only is the terminal performance is tremendously enhanced, but is also extremely consistent.”
That is a curious statement.
A non yawing softpoint that can defeat barriers is better than a yawing, fragmenting bullet that can’t. In my opinion anyway.
“The design for these rounds have been modified to meet all law and military requirements as required while meeting all performance Key Performance Parameters (KPP’s).”
If quotes from a sole source procurement justification are going to be used, lets not forget the most important one above…
“BUT, this bullet is clearly designed for fast and controlled expansion and penetration, and this is very clearly opposed to both spirit and wording of this law, no matter how you spin it.”
Again, no. The SOST bullets clearly are designed to meet the Key Performance Parameters and validated barrier blind requirements of the end-user.
DocGKR, obviously the design of the trophy bonded has been modified in the Mk318, but let’s look at the “Key Performance Parameters”:
Oprimized performance for use in Carbine length 14 weapon systems
Enhanced Intermediate Barrier defeat capability which provided enhanced behind barrier terminal performance(Auto glass/doors)
Enhanced and consistent accuracy Not to Exceed 2 MOA
Enhanced terminal performance against soft targets specifically in a Close Quarter Combat (CQC) environment less than 50 yards
Increased effective range
Flash reduced and temperature stable propellant
Terminal performance is Not “Yaw” Dependant and is therefore consistent
Again, I’m sure you have seen many pictures of the expanded points of these bullets, are you going to argue they do not expand?
are you going to argue they do not expand?
I don’t think the ‘E’ word can be used while discussing military small arms projectiles.
In our quest to be sensitive to our humanitarian friends, it should be emphasized that the bullet doesn’t actually expand, but that the nose has been scientifically designed to evolve into a velocity retarding shape that tends to reduce unintended casualties due to excessive penetration of opposing military personnel when used in close proximity to a non combatant, civilian rich environment.
“I’m sure you have seen many pictures of the expanded points of these bullets, are you going to argue they do not expand?”
Can’t say I have ever seen a SOST projectile “expand”; I have seen them reliably perform in a barrier blind fashion while exhibiting early upset and avoiding the angle of attack problems and inconsistency associated with many other military 5.56 mm projectiles.
“it should be emphasized that the bullet doesn’t actually expand, the nose has been scientifically designed to evolve into a velocity retarding shape that tends to reduce unintended casualties due to excessive penetration of opposing military personnel when used in close proximity to a non combatant, civilian rich environment.”
Now you are starting to get into the proper spirit…
Anyone know whether or not ATK has plans for l/e sales of SOST ammo?
[QUOTE=200RNL;635851]I don’t think the ‘E’ word can be used while discussing military small arms projectiles.QUOTE]
I know, I know … I just have this pesky custom to call a spade a spade.
DRT, I guess Federal TBBC 62 gr, performance should be pretty similar. It is even bonded, something the .mil load is not. Externally the bullet is a flat base, with exposed lead, but the interior design is quite similar.
I would like to know why the bullet grooves in the Mk318, perhaps to cut in-bore drag? The boat tail is probably to get a better trajectory match with M885.