Full Metal Jacket
New member
What bullet type do you think is most appropiate for our military to use?
(Assuming we don't follow Hague rules)
(Assuming we don't follow Hague rules)
What bullet type for Military?
- Thread starter Full Metal Jacket
- Start date
Sum1_Special
New member
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.
IZinterrogator
New member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Full Metal Jacket
New member
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?
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.
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.
tanstaafl4y
New member
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
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
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.
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.
seeker_two
New member
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)....
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.
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.
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?
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?
Impact of Reason
New member
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.