Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Status
Not open for further replies.

LaEscopeta

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
983
Location
Los Estados Unidos
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/02/marine_SOST_ammo_021510w/

Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

By Dan Lamothe - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Feb 16, 2010 9:29:10 EST

The Marine Corps is dropping its conventional 5.56mm ammunition in Afghanistan in favor of new deadlier, more accurate rifle rounds, and could field them at any time.

The open-tipped rounds until now have been available only to Special Operations Command troops. The first 200,000 5.56mm Special Operations Science and Technology rounds are already downrange with Marine Expeditionary Brigade-Afghanistan, said Brig. Gen. Michael Brogan, commander of Marine Corps Systems Command. Commonly known as “SOST” rounds, they were legally cleared for Marine use by the Pentagon in late January, according to Navy Department documents obtained by Marine Corps Times.

SOCom developed the new rounds for use with the Special Operations Force Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR, which needed a more accurate bullet because its short barrel, at 13.8 inches, is less than an inch shorter than the M4 carbine’s. Using an open-tip match round 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.

[Edit]
See the link for the complete article.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Legal concerns
Before the SOST round could be fielded by the Corps, it had to clear a legal hurdle: approval that it met international law of war standards.

Open-tip bullets have been approved for use by U.S. forces for decades, but are sometimes confused with hollow-point rounds, which expand in human tissue after impact, causing unnecessary suffering, according to widely accepted international treaties signed following the Hague peace conventions held in the Netherlands in 1899 and 1907.


i'm really not sure why the US is still so concerned about this. we never signed that treaty. we are not bound by it. and what punishment would we face is we issued our troops API rounds for their M4's? nada.

last i checked, war only has one rule. win.

Bobby
 
It's great to see the USMC doing this. Between this and the "IAR" adoption of the HK416, it appears that they actually want to fight effectively. Woah! Marines who want to fight - imagine that.

The discussion of OTM vs. HP is just silly in my view. The design is almost the same, varying mostly in the size of the hollow point, and the target effect is almost the same as well. It's a made-up distinction for legal/political reasons, I think.
 
open-tip vs hollow-point? Seems they are using semantics to get around a long dead legal issue that remains a public relations nightmare.

The prohibition in Hague against "the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body" which the current match HPBT "sniper" rounds do. They generally strip the jacket and what happens with the lead core is anyone's guess.

And we regularly use HE and API rounds on human targets, so I don't see why we even bother pretending like this 100 year old treaty is still relevant.
 
Why are we following a 100-year-old treaty that we never signed? About time for hollowpoints. How about Extreme Shock ammo next?
 
horse of a different color!

"Special Operations Science and Technology Rounds."
Who wouldn't be convinced that these will be the answer to fielding our troops with a varmit round.

How many modifications, variations, and technological advances can they wring out of that .22 before some brass get some brass and say do away with it?
 
well if the new round is anything like what we have been using in the army and airforce combat units since 03 then it is a simple VLD 77gr HP. you can get the same exact ammo from black hills. they were the ones that were making it for us back then. our way to get around the HP issue was that it was to improve accuracy, not improve lethality or maiming abilities. :rolleyes: When i was with SOEUR we used the 77gr rounds with great effectiveness out of the m4's equipped with various suppressors and sound dampening devices. accuracy was excellent, and penetration thru objects like thin walls and vehicles was awesome and retained enough energy to take down the bad guys. this was a great all around 5 meters to 500 meters round. i personally never shot this round in combat (was an m24 shooter), but those that did, did so with great effectiveness and this also allowed us to limit the number of m14's since you could shoot at greater distances than previous ammo (as mentioned previously 500 meters with an acog was no problem). anything past 500 meters and they were mine with my m24.

anyway, glad we are finally actually fighting with out tieing our hands behind our back with stupid rules (that the bad guys don't abide by).

JOE
 
How many modifications, variations, and technological advances can they wring out of that .22 before some brass get some brass and say do away with it?


The round they are discussing is very effective.

Sadly, it has taken 8 years of combat operations for some folks to figure it out...
 
Who wouldn't be convinced that these will be the answer to fielding our troops with a varmit round.

How many modifications, variations, and technological advances can they wring out of that .22 before some brass get some brass and say do away with it?

You've never seen an M4 used in combat I take it.

No offense, but generally speaking, the people who are the biggest detractors of using the 5.56 round in combat are those who have never been in combat themselves, and like you, think of it as a varmint round. However, once you've seen the 5.56 remove the back of someone's head, you get the impression it's not bad as a combat round.
 
non offended correction

Ragnar:

You may go into my listed personal profile to determine that I have seen
it's predecessor, the M-16 used. Aside from spectacular head shots the
.223 can, at times be dismal. I blame it on some loss of life that I have seen.

I'm older Ragnar. I had my basic training with the .308 -M-14; saw it also in action, and trust it much more.

Since it's conception and adoption by our armed forces, that gun has undergone modification after modification, as well as the round it fires, to the point where our leadership ought to in all good conscience go on to what was proven in the previous wars.

I would qualify this by stating that it, as now modified, makes a fine weapon for Airborne troops, etc.

I was Army, but as the USMC trains for bullseye accuracy, I think they would be more efficient with the M-14.
 
Cant use hollow points, but ok to use "aerodynamic non expanding" hollow points, do polymer tip vmax's or Nosler Ballistic tips count?
 
I sure would hate to have to shoot a M14 in full body armor, or attempt to maneuver and fire it from inside a vehicle, or lean out of a turret and fire it one handed to warn off an approaching vehicle, or enter a building full of narrow hallways and tight rooms.

It is a very different war, and a lightweight, handy rifle has benefits. USSOCOM, with its independent budget and freedom to acquire whatever weapon it likes, still largely uses short, lightweight carbines in 5.56.
 
How about Extreme Shock ammo next?
Yup. We'll evacuate our personnel and then fire one "Fang-Face" into the ground and the resulting earthquake will swallow up all the Taliban and terrorists.
 
You've never seen an M4 used in combat I take it.

No offense, but generally speaking, the people who are the biggest detractors of using the 5.56 round in combat are those who have never been in combat themselves, and like you, think of it as a varmint round. However, once you've seen the 5.56 remove the back of someone's head, you get the impression it's not bad as a combat round.
Agreed, James excepted.

Sounds like they're generally fielding the Mk 262

Hague Declaration III is "Rounds that expand or flatten easily in the Human body" not necessarily hollow point, soft point, or any other current naming convention, it's what it does not what it's called. Although Afghanistan isn't a signatory power, but I guess the we're just dotting i's and crossing t's.

And yes as I say every time, that someone claims otherwise the US did sign the Hague conventions, and Look here for when the US signed
http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1038 (I should have that link as a favorite to save having to find it again, and again, and again...)
 
Need a more accurate bullet because of a shorter bbl? These folks need to get their facts straight about bbl length and its affect on accuracy.
 
It has been through law of land warfare review and has passed that review so that it meets the criteria of not causing unnecessary pain and suffering.”

I'll bet it causes less pain and suffering than an IED too.
 
So now we will finally listen to those of us (in the service) who said the problem is not the cartridge, but the bullet. I would rather take a mag of Blitzkings than a case of the 855! But my sight would be off and the CO would gripe.
I wonder what powder they are using? faster burning to reduce flash and yet get the same trajectory?
 
I wonder if they can work some magic on "open tip" 9mms so our guys will have more affective handgun rounds.
 
Most of the fighting in Afghanistan is in open terrain isn't it? Why would they still be issuing short barrels en masse when the fighting doesn't call for it. Irrc the marines still issue M16A4s mostly right?
 
Well if they have come up with a more effective round then I think they should immediately switch to the new round for all users and get rid of the old 855's. I'm sure the milsurp ammo market can help with disposal :D
 
SOCom developed the new rounds for use with the Special Operations Force Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR, which needed a more accurate bullet because its short barrel, at 13.8 inches, is less than an inch shorter than the M4 carbine’s.

Sorry, but just because a barrel is an inch shorter does not mean accuracy will be hindered.
 
Sorry, but just because a barrel is an inch shorter does not mean accuracy will be hindered.
It's a tad bit more complicated, the effectively tumble in human flesh a 5.56 round has to be going so fast, if it's fired from a short barrel then it kind of complicates that. Though I don't have the specific stats of it on hand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top