http://www.lightfighter.net/forum/ballistics-and-projectile-performance
http://pistol-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?19-Ammunition
http://www.lightfighter.net/forum/ballistics-and-projectile-performance
http://pistol-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?19-Ammunition
Thanks for posting Doc.
PS, who shot the chronograph?
12ga wads are not chrono friendly…
In your opinion Doc, is the MK318 superior to other OTM alternatives? I’m looking for a bulk load and the Federal load is hard to come by, and a fortune to keep in bulk.
DocGKR, great information!
May I ask:
Does the fragmentation of the bullet nose in the Mk318 contributes to tear the expanded tissue, like the M193/M855? If so, how is the expected performance in the first 15 cm or so of penetration compared to the other bonded loads that have much higher weigth retention (expansion and very little fragmentation)?
How is the performance of Mk318 vs M193/M855, when fired in the same barrel lenght, and with a rifle that produces significant early yaw/short neck?
Why the military did not simply adopt the Fed 62 gr FBI TBBC JSP, and instead developed the Mk318? I think the federal load has been available for a while now. Was it a cost issue with the bonded bullets?
What happened to a similar military design with a bullet of 70 gr (“optimal” load)? Is it still in production or has been effectively replaced by the Mk318?
I believe your question is answered in the terminal performance stickies.
Hey Doc—any chance of testing the 5.45 V-Max?
I will send you some if you need some to try out 
I would really like to see what it does
Although I might be wrong, I’m sure more than anything else it was the Geneva Convention not allowing expanding bullets (JSPs might not expand as quickly as HPs, but they do nonetheless).
Does anyone know if either the Federal or Winchester FBI loadings are available for sale yet? Or are the FBI contracts still consuming all of the current production?
maccabees: The Geneva Convention does NOT cover small arms projectiles; you are thinking of the Hague Convention–you might wish to review this: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19937.
BullittBoy: We have some for testing.
Beat Trash: I am told it will be available in the next few months, perhaps after SHOT.
TiroFijo: Yes. Similar, although one is damaging tissue by small fragments, the other by a larger expanded diameter. Mk318 is more accurate and offers more consistent terminal performance than FMJ. The TBBC bonded JSP was not judged legal by JAG; the SOST design was deemed to be Law of Land Warfare compliant–it is obvious why when looking at the recovered projectiles… 70 gr Optimal is a superb projectile, especially for longer range use. It is also lead free and relatively blind to barriers, yet less expensive and more accurate than M855A1.
I as well.
From prior DOCGKR posts for purposes of comparison:
http://www.lightfighter.net/forum/ballistics-and-projectile-performance
http://pistol-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?19-Ammunition
==========================================
DOCGKR:
Regarding barrier blind loads, it doesn’t seem that the newest 5.56mm versions offer that much more performance vs their .223 counterparts. Maybe the difference is improved performance at longer range???
While not the best through barriers, do you still feel that the Hornady 75gr 5.56mm TAP offers the best unobstructed terminal performance in 5.56mm/.223?
.
You’re right. I misspoke up there; I WAS thinking of the Hague Convention. Thanks for correcting me.
The 5.56 mm loads extended the effective engagement distance and allow the use of shorter barrels.
75/77 gr OTM remains great for long range accuracy, as well as unobstructed shots. The problem remains that the bad guys don’t always allow the good guys that luxury; thus the benefits of using more versatile barrier blind ammo as a general purpose load.
So what’s ‘the word’ on that 7.62x39 SST round? I see Cabelas has it for $35-ish/50, which is a fantastic price compared to good 5.56 options.
I’ve read bits and pieces here and there, but never really got a solid “yeah it’s good to go” vibe from anyone regarding it’s usefulness.
Also, I didn’t see any talk about it’s ability to penetrate barriers.
It is among the best 7.62x39 mm loads available, easily eclipsing most 5.56 mm loads and approaching 6.8 mm wound profiles in bare gel: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19885. While I love the 7.62x39mm ballistics out of 16" barrels, I far prefer AR15’s over AK’s. While AR’s are available in 7.62x39mm, in aggregate most 7.62x39 mm AR15 variants rarely ever work reliably or offer good durability. Thus the potential appeal of the .300 BLK in a duty AR15 if good barrier blind projectiles can be developed for LE use. Likewise, 6.8 mm is currently available and offers even better terminal and external ballistics than 7.62x39 mm or 5.56 mm…
M995 wasn’t that bad in Iraq; I’ve had no complaints. In another thread you mentioned that “It only comes in linked form for the M249/Mk46.” I don’t know if this is true or not; only that it was issue for us for M4s. Maybe they unlinked them? I remember it was a big deal in Kuwait because we had to rezero our ARs cause of the weight of the round…
Interesting, I assume no fragmentation with that projectile.
In soft tissue hits, M995 generally just yaws over without significant bullet deformation or fragmentation…