Why doesn't the US issue Mk. 262 en masse?

[Nolo]

So what are you asking us for?

An answer unrelated to whether or not the problem should be considered. I've got a gig of my computer memory devoted to this problem, I ain't gonna stop now.
The answer I'm looking for is basically whether there's a good reason for not issuing Mk. 262 or not.
Now, I just considered that maybe KCMarine was illustrating the viewpoint of the brass (if it ain't broke, don't improve it). Which is a perfectly valid response. In which case, I retract my defensive statements.

 

[tiptone]

Whoah! Since when did M855 get to 3,000 fps? Last time I heard, it was at 2750 fps. Big difference.

That's what we like to call "Close enough for government work".

And really, it's not that big a difference.

 

[Nolo]

And really, it's not that big a difference.

For that bullet, it is.
If the M855 moved at, say 3100 fps, I probably wouldn't be asking this question.

 

[kcmarine]

Whoah! Since when did M855 get to 3,000 fps? Last time I heard, it was at 2750 fps. Big difference.
As for your argument, it's a fallacy. I don't like getting hit with paintballs when the speedballers have cranked them up to 400 fps. Does that mean the US military should switch to .68 caliber paintballs in all their combat weapons?

So my argument is a fallacy, but you're making references to paintballing? Paintballing is a bit different than fighting for your life. The most casual of observers could tell you that. I'm not suggesting that we should give soldiers weapons set on "stun". I'm saying that a lot of the people on here and other RKBA sites are putting the paper performance before the real life performance. The MiG 15 was a superior fighter jet to the F-86 Saber, on paper. The Tiger tank was far better than the Sherman, on paper. The Bismark was better than anything the British Fleet had, on paper. The Japanese Fleet was better than the post- Pearl Harbor American Fleet, on paper. We can sit here and banter all day about how effective a cartridge or bullet is, but at the end of the day, it's not the specifications of the round or piece of military hardware that make the difference, it's how well the men in the theater use it.

The MiG had better performance specs and better weapons than the F-86, but the experience of American pilots decimated their North Korean foes and the Soviet instructors they faced.

The Tiger tank had a main gun that put the Sherman's to shame, and armor that was perhaps the best available at the time, but the logistics needed to produce it and the idiocy of the German High Command (Hitler in particular) made them a blunt instrument against the Allies, who used tanks that were made so that they were endless in supply and were commanded by men who didn't have the urge to wipe out a race and had a hard amphetamine addiction.

The Bismark was the pride of the German fleet, and was the most feared ship in the Northern Atlantic during the spring of 1940. Its rudder was jammed when a fabric- winged, wooden- structured biplane of the British Navy fired a torpedo and damaged the rudder. After that, the British battle group turned the fight into a blood bath, with German blood running out of the faucet.

The Japanese Fleet was better than the American Pacific Fleet by the simple virtue that the majority of the American Fleet was on the bottom of Pearl Harbor. I think you can figure out where that headed.

Am I saying that there aren't better rounds out there for our soldiers? No. Am I saying that we might be nit- picking based on specifications and not what happens in real life? Yes.

 

[Tony Williams]

As far as the stocks of 5.56mm are concerned, a year or so back the US was so short of them that emergency purchases had to be made from abroad - I recall orders being placed with Israel. Ammo is getting used up so fast in present circumstances that using up surplus stocks is not an issue.

However, the US Army has set its face against changing from the 5.56mm, at least until something really radical comes along - which takes us back to the LSAT programme with its plastic cased or caseless telescoped ammo. I know (because I spoke to one of the guys in charge a couple of weeks ago) that they are considering an intermediate calibre version which might replace both 5.56mm and 7.62mm MGs, and a carbine using the same ammo. That's the best chance for a more effective round we're likely to see in the forseeable future. If that doesn't come off, we'll be waiting to replace the 5.56mm until phasers are available.

 

[Nolo]

So my argument is a fallacy, but you're making references to paintballing? Paintballing is a bit different than fighting for your life.

You're diverting my argument. My argument was that, just because something doesn't need to be improved, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be improved.
I didn't bring up paintballing. I brought up paintballs. I was using hyperbole to illustrate that if you reduce the terminal effectiveness enough then you see that argument doesn't hold up. Thus, it becomes a matter of worth. Is it worth a tradeoff of increased logistical complications for a time to get greater effectiveness? If your military was using paintballs, the answer would be obvious. In my understanding of the situation, which is not complete, else I wouldn't have asked the question, it appears wholly worth it to switch off to Mk. 262, seeing as how the logistical complications appear to be nearly nonexistant.

We can sit here and banter all day about how effective a cartridge or bullet is, but at the end of the day, it's not the specifications of the round or piece of military hardware that make the difference, it's how well the men in the theater use it.

Yeah, but my calling in life isn't how to field a better soldier. It's how to field a better cartridge.

Am I saying that there aren't better rounds out there for our soldiers? No. Am I saying that we might be nit- picking based on specifications and not what happens in real life? Yes.

If you don't like the discussion, don't enter into it.
And the Mk. 262 has been used in combat, and it's effectiveness has been shown to at least be worth considering on a large scale.

 

[Nolo]

However, the US Army has set its face against changing from the 5.56mm, at least until something really radical comes along - which takes us back to the LSAT programme with its plastic cased or caseless telescoped ammo. I know (because I spoke to one of the guys in charge a couple of weeks ago) that they are considering an intermediate calibre version which might replace both 5.56mm and 7.62mm MGs, and a carbine using the same ammo. That's the best chance for a more effective round we're likely to see in the forseeable future. If that doesn't come off, we'll be waiting to replace the 5.56mm until phasers are available.

What kind of ballistics are they looking at for the LSAT mid-caliber?

 

[strat81]

he answer I'm looking for is basically whether there's a good reason for not issuing Mk. 262 or not.

Cost.

The additional costs of making Mk262 standard issue does not outweigh the benefits.

 

[Nolo]

The additional costs of making Mk262 standard issue does not outweigh the benefits.

I guess, then, that they are just too lazy to come up with a cheaper version.

 

[strat81]

I guess, then, that they are just too lazy to come up with a cheaper version.

A cheaper version will probably have poorer performance, either in terms of accuracy or terminal ballistics.

If the new round is not as accurate and doesn't kill/stop as effectively as real Mk262, why not stick with M855?

Run some tests of your own. Buy some 77gr Match Kings and buy some of the 75gr Prvi OTM bullets. You can run accuracy and chrono tests. I'd bet Brassfetcher.com can set you up with gelatin tests if you pay them.


Also if you think the .mil, Sierra, Nosler, ATK, and Hornady are not working on new .224 bullet designs, you are most likely wrong.

 

[SimpleIsGood229]

I think something to consider would be to issue the M193. No, perhaps it's not as ''good'' as the Mk. 262, but I'm thinking its terminal performance on lightly-clad jihadists would be better than M855. It would seem that for now, the M193 route would be more feasible than the Mk. 262 route.

But then again, maybe the decrease in obstacle penetration of the M193, in comparison to the M855, wouldn't be worth the gain in terminal performance. But then, the 5.56 isn't horribly efficient in that area anyway.

In short: How about the M193 on a sort of interim basis?

 

[kcmarine]

Yeah, but my calling in life isn't how to field a better soldier. It's how to field a better cartridge.

The end result of research into arms isn't to say, "Hey, we found this way to field a better (insert tool of war here)." The purpose is to find something that enhances a military's overall ability to fight.

Recent small- arms development is absolutely filled to the top with tales of how this is true. Some excellent examples are the OICW program, which spawned the XM8. Another example is the XM312/XM307 machine gun/grenade launcher, which was developed to replace the M2 and the Mk 19. There's also the GyroJet, which was a great concept but was seen to be as an answer in search of a question, which it was. This habit of replacing one thing with another thing just to find out you should have stuck with the original in the first place is nothing new. The M1911 is finding its way back into service, and other firearms chambered for .45 ACP/ NATO are being picked up by military units as well, 20 some odd years after such weapons were thought to be obsolete and were replaced with the M9. I could go into such things as the Landwarrior concept, the Comanche helicopter and the F111 fighter, but I think you get my point.

This whole problem isn't just a one of replacing something older with something inferior, either. Look at the Russians. One could argue that the An-94 is the most advanced assault rifle design available today, but since the Soviet Union flooded the world with AK-47s and AKMs, no one wants to buy the An-94, and the Russians can't afford to make them for their military so that each soldier has one. Would their military be a better one if each man was given an An-94 to have? Yes, but that only applies if their government can afford to do so. Since they cannot, the Russian Army is better off using the AK-100 series of weapons.

This is somewhat of the problem we see with wanting to give each and every soldier Mk.262 rounds. It would be expensive, and though the US military spends hundreds of billions every year on weapons systems, there isn't any real reason for us to provide each soldier with that round and have to spend the money to do so. As far as I'm concerned, there is no perfect combat round, let alone one in the 5.56x45mm NATO chambering. The M855 does a good job, and doesn't cost a load of cash to supply each soldier with.

There's no real way to make the Mk. 262 cheaper with today's component costs. And taking short cuts on ammo to make it cheaper always has results that make it less effective. Either you can afford it or you can't. If you can afford it, do it. If you can't pay for every man to have it, you give it to the men that really need it, and use those men in ways that would give you an advantage.

 

[Girodin]

If you make a $50,000 Mercedes that costs $20,000 is it still the same Mercedes?

The cross fire is mechanicaly a mecerdes that cost much less simply because it has a chrysler badge so I guess you can. It is shocking how much mark up there is in a name.

I've always wondered if the guys here on the internet would be willing to stand out at 200 yards and have the rounds that are so much "less effective" slung at them at over 3,000 feet per second.

This is such a weak rebuttal. The arguement isn't that they cannot kill someone or that they wont hurt. It is that there is something that is more effective. Something being more effective doesn't mean the other thing is completely ineffective.

The more sensical thing is to ask if you had to stand out there which would you rather have be shot at you.

 

[Slamfire]

Now, I know the Mk. 262 is an expensive round to make, being match, but why doesn't the US create a more production-friendly version and then issue it on large scale? It seems like a natural thing to do to increase the effectiveness of the 5.56 round.

Who is going to create a production friendly version and whom is going to make it?

The US Government has contracted out its core skills to private industry. Lake City is a Government owned, Contractor operated facility. All other types of ammunition are being purchased direct from contractors. I have not seen, but I do not doubt that W/W, Fed, Blackhills, etc, are all cranking out ammunition for the Sandbox.

What savings would the Government have in paying a contractor to copy an already existing bullet design? And, if they want someone to make it, the Government is going to have to buy some happy Corporation a new factory to do it.

And then, they will have upset Sierra, who is the source of the 77 grain bullets, by reducing their profits. Some congressman will be writing unhappy grams to the Army, informing the Army that some appropriation is at risk. And don't you doubt that Congressmen and Senators will wipe out budget line items when campaign contributions and local jobs are at threat.

("Hey Army, your budget has been reduced by the price of the first Armored Cavalry Division. But, you still have to fund it. Take it out of your hide. That will teach you, har, har, har.")

The path of least resistance is to buy direct from the contractors. That is also how the Government maximizes the profits of the well connected, without causing a scandal.

Bing, bing, bing. We have a winner.

 

[strat81]

The path of least resistance is to buy direct from the contractors. That is also how the Government maximizes the profits of the well connected, without causing a scandal.

Bing, bing, bing. We have a winner.

That's capitalism (and it's good!). As I've mentioned the big bullet companies surely have someone toiling away in a lab somewhere working on a better-than-Mk262 design.

If Hornady showed up at the Army's door with a new bullet design that was as accurate as Mk262, deadly as Mk262, but cost half the price, it would get a lot of attention.

For comparison, look at the recent weapons trials for a new .45 sidearm. The .mil asked for ideas and private industry responded.

 

[hso]

But why do you need to treat them like there's a difference? Why not say, oh, this is lot #572392 and this is lot #572393, and they just happen to be different cartridges, but since they can be fired from the same barrels, weigh the same, fit in the same magazines, use the same case heads and all in all are completely interchangeable, we really don't care that they're any different.

The larger issue of the logistics involves accounting for them as different items because they have different costs and require separate tracking for QA purposes. This allows for budgeting based on tracked consumption rate and also allows product failure analysis to be performed on the product as a whole and on lots produced from different lines.

100,000 rounds of the new expensive ammo that turns out to have a manufacturing defect needs to be tracked so that Forrest and his friends don't find themselves down range with dud ammo when a simple tracking detail might save their bacon by preventing the bad ammo from being issued to them.

 

[DMR]

Nolo posted:

Being 17, no, I have not.

With that in mind listen to the likes of Horsesoldier and others that have pointed out some very good points.

1. The services have a new "green" replacement to M-855 coming out, which cloads the whole issue since M-855 as we know it is on the way out. The new round still needs to be proven, maybe it will work.
2. MK-262 does not out perform 5.56mm in all situations, barriers and armor in particular.
3. MK-262 is showing problems with "weatherproofing" in the sand box that M-855 is not.
4. Some LOT's of M-855 are almost has accurate as MK-262 and given issue M-4 the differance may not be noticiable. Some M-4's are less accurate with MK-262.
5. A few organizations are using better 5.56mm rounds then either MK-262 or M-855, at least for their mission sets. The rounds are also preety darned expensive from what I understand.
6. We will most likely see a new service rifle and cartidge no soon then 6 years from now. General Casey was recently quoted in the news has having the Amry look into the issue of "improved" 5.56mm.

If you are looking to add to your GIG's of data look up the National Defense Industrial Association and search their Small Arms Conferance history files.

Oh, buy the way 5.56mm does it's job preety well. When you supported it with 5.56 M-249's, 400m M-203's and MK-19s, 7.62mm M-14 and M-240s, .50 M-2 HMG's ect...... The whole debate is over done, at least for the conventional Army. Are there better options? yes. Is MK-262 it? no.

 

[Zak Smith]

Whoah! Since when did M855 get to 3,000 fps? Last time I heard, it was at 2750 fps. Big difference.

Uhh, guys--

M855 is about 3095 from a 20", 3050 from a 18", 2990 from a 16", and 2900 fps from a 14.5" M4. It dips down to 2750 somewhere between 11 and 13".

-z

 

[kcmarine]

Really? Wheew... I just threw out a guess there .

 

[CBS220]

Good M855 pulls that sort of speed- American made and the like.

I've had some Radway Green SS109 that was advertised as being like M855 that I got at a lowball price that barely broke 2900. I hear it was loaded-down because the British L85 and similar rifles jam and malfunction a lot.

But in the real world, it's not like it really matters. 100 fps more and 0.02 inch more of expansion means nothing... but, that nothing is what 99% of the internet seems to focus on.

I agree with the poster earlier on- the effectiveness of M855 is magically lessened when it is discussed on the internet, as opposed to being shot at a BG.

 

[ZombieHunter]

As for the Mercedes to cheaper car...sure. Check out a Dodge Magnum/charger or Chrysler 300. It's just an E class Mercades with a better engine and cheaper appointments. Same tranny, suspension and frame

 

[Tony Williams]

What kind of ballistics are they looking at for the LSAT mid-caliber?

The man didn't say - but he was familiar with the 6.8mm Rem and 6.5mm Grendel...

The earliest date for LSAT to result in a production weapon is 2015, so don't hold your breath.

 

[Nolo]

M855 is about 3095 from a 20", 3050 from a 18", 2990 from a 16", and 2900 fps from a 14.5" M4. It dips down to 2750 somewhere between 11 and 13".

Really? The data I've always used was much lower, roughly the same as 7.62 NATO. Of course, I could have been a fool and memorized the crap off of Wikipedia (which may or may not have good info In my experience you should confirm it, then memorize it off Wiki if it's legit.)

 

[Nolo]

By the way, to HorseSoldier and others, you guys may have been getting flak because of emotional buildup from an entirely different discussion I was having simultaneously to this one. I'm sorry if I came across rotten.

 

[Monkeybear]

I guess, then, that they are just too lazy to come up with a cheaper version.

Ahhhh, of course! They could just make a cheaper one! Why didn't the Army think of improving their ammo and making it cheaper? Thats genius; and all we have to do is use technology and manufacturing and we can make everything better and cheaper! Or someone could just call the Army and say "I have a great idea....you could just lower the tolerances on your MK-262 and it will be cheaper" and then the army will call the ammo making place and they will pull the "Tolerance" lever down a couple of notches and it will be cheaper.


/sarcasm