New Brown tipped ammo for SOCOM?

AR-15 » Ammunition

AR Sponsor:

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - New Brown tipped ammo for SOCOM? (Page 1 of 3)

Posted: 5/16/2008 7:29:46 AM EDT

Link

Brown Tip 5.56mm for Short Barrels
May 16, 2008: U.S. SOCOM (Special Operations Command) has used its own, bureaucracy free, budget to design and manufacture special ammunition for the short barrel (10-15 inch) weapons (like the M-4 and SCAR Light). The new ammo, referred to as "5.56 Optimized", or "brown tip" (because the tips of the bullets are brown for easy identification) uses a bullet that is solid copper and 70 grains in weight (compared to 62 grains for the NATO standard 5.56 bullet). The solid copper design is believed to be based on a commercial design (the Barnes Triple-Shock X) that was introduced five years ago. The new round was designed to achieve better accuracy and hitting power at the ranges (under 300 meters) the short barrel weapons are most effective at. The brown tip ammo costs more, because of its unique design and small production runs, but SOCOM doesn't worry about that when it's for something that will make its operators more effective, and help keep them alive.

Interesting. I hope this is not a dupe, this is the first I have heard of it and it didn't come up on a search. I figure this stuff HAS to be expensive.

-K

Posted: 5/16/2008 7:41:50 AM EDT

[#1]

If it's a TSX, then I don't think JAG would approve it as land warfare legal.

Posted: 5/16/2008 7:49:31 AM EDT

[#2]

Why would it not be legal? sorry to ask who is JAG im still new to this computer stuff.

Posted: 5/16/2008 7:58:48 AM EDT

[#3]

JAG = Judge Advocate General ( I think)

Basically - Military Lawyers and judges

the Geneva Convention as specifications on what "type" of ammo in humane...yeah I know, makes no sense.

Has long has it's not a "hallow point" it should be good, but I'm sure that's not the only stipulation.

Posted: 5/16/2008 8:01:05 AM EDT

[#4]

Ah, its nice to be able to somewhat talk about this now

Posted: 5/16/2008 8:06:03 AM EDT

[#5]

TSX is definitely an expanding round.

Posted: 5/16/2008 8:07:49 AM EDT

[#6]

Sexy, I hope we get a similar product on the civvie market for less that $20 per 20rnd box.

Posted: 5/16/2008 8:14:35 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Sexy, I hope we get a similar product on the civvie market for less that $20 per 20rnd box.

That's not going to happen any time soon. I cost me $67.53 for just 100 of the Barnes 70 grain TSX. That's 67 cents just for the bullet.

Posted: 5/16/2008 8:19:57 AM EDT

[#8]

Yes with a TSX bullet you would only need 1 shot to take down a bad guy i would think. so the road side bombs that kill all our friends are legal to use? play dirty if you have to they do.

Posted: 5/16/2008 8:21:31 AM EDT

[#9]

I load Barnes for several Different calibers (especially my elk guns), and the above poster is right. You ain't getting it loaded for a dollar a round.

Posted: 5/16/2008 9:32:53 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
...cost me $67.53 for just 100 of the Barnes 70 grain TSX. That's 67 cents just for the bullet.

ouch.

Posted: 5/16/2008 9:57:17 AM EDT

[#11]

Looks like it acts more like SP than a match HP.

Posted: 5/16/2008 10:02:56 AM EDT

[#12]

I've seen some paperwork from the DOD lawyers that it's thier interpatation of the GC that HP ammo is NOT Illegal for anti-terrorist work as performed by Special Op's personal. HP use by normal troops still illegal. Except for OTM (Open Tip Match) ammo as that's been determined to not function like a "true" Hollow Point.

Posted: 5/16/2008 11:39:42 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
I've seen some paperwork from the DOD lawyers that it's thier interpatation of the GC that HP ammo is NOT Illegal for anti-terrorist work as performed by Special Op's personal. HP use by normal troops still illegal. Except for OTM (Open Tip Match) ammo as that's been determined to not function like a "true" Hollow Point.

That's interesting. I don't know why SOCOM wouldn't have to conform to the same JAG rulings as other military units.

Posted: 5/16/2008 12:27:01 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
If it's a TSX, then I don't think JAG would approve it as land warfare legal.

What is TSX?

Posted: 5/16/2008 12:29:58 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
the Geneva Convention as specifications on what "type" of ammo in humane...yeah I know, makes no sense.

wrong

Posted: 5/16/2008 12:40:11 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
JAG = Judge Advocate General ( I think)

Basically - Military Lawyers and judges

the Geneva Convention as specifications on what "type" of ammo in humane...yeah I know, makes no sense.

Has long has it's not a "hallow point" it should be good, but I'm sure that's not the only stipulation.

Actually that would be the hauge convention you're talking about. And you can use HP rounds. Look at M262 and other OTM rounds that are in use.

You can use them as long as you're using them to improve accuracy

Posted: 5/16/2008 12:41:21 PM EDT

[#17]

I thought the Geneva Convention was more of a "guideline" than a law.

Posted: 5/16/2008 12:46:05 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If it's a TSX, then I don't think JAG would approve it as land warfare legal.

What is TSX?

Barnes TSX

Posted: 5/16/2008 12:49:09 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
JAG = Judge Advocate General ( I think)

Basically - Military Lawyers and judges

the Geneva Convention as specifications on what "type" of ammo in humane...yeah I know, makes no sense.

Has long has it's not a "hallow point" it should be good, but I'm sure that's not the only stipulation.

Actually that would be the hauge convention you're talking about. And you can use HP rounds. Look at M262 and other OTM rounds that are in use.

You can use them as long as you're using them to improve accuracy

It's a technicality on based on the purpose of the point, a hollow point being to increase expansion, and OTM being to increase accuracy. Thus why Mk262 is "legal".

Posted: 5/16/2008 1:12:09 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I've seen some paperwork from the DOD lawyers that it's thier interpatation of the GC that HP ammo is NOT Illegal for anti-terrorist work as performed by Special Op's personal. HP use by normal troops still illegal. Except for OTM (Open Tip Match) ammo as that's been determined to not function like a "true" Hollow Point.

That's interesting. I don't know why SOCOM wouldn't have to conform to the same JAG rulings as other military units.

Reckon they figure SOCOM is just shooting enemy combatants, not individuals afforded protection under LOAC.

Posted: 5/16/2008 2:30:04 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Yes with a TSX bullet you would only need 1 shot to take down a bad guy i would think. so the road side bombs that kill all our friends are legal to use? play dirty if you have to they do.

I hope you're really joking here. In spite of how badly some of our troops have performed (mostly because nobody bothered to properly train them and God forbid actually LEAD them), we DO NOT play dirty, particularly in our weapon choices. Roadside bombs are not sanctioned, but each and every time THEY "play dirty" they show how morally corrupt and bankrupt they and their cause are.

Posted: 5/16/2008 5:32:33 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
I thought the Geneva Convention was more of a "guideline" than a law.

The Hague Convention is what covers the weapons of war. The Geneva Convention is more about the treatment of prisoners and non-combatants. Also I thought we never signed the Hague Convention but I could be wrong.

Posted: 5/16/2008 5:39:33 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I thought the Geneva Convention was more of a "guideline" than a law.

The Hague Convention is what covers the weapons of war. The Geneva Convention is more about the treatment of prisoners and non-combatants. Also I thought we never signed the Hague Convention but I could be wrong.

The position of the U.S. Government is that we will comply with both Geneva and the Hague, even though we are not signatory to them.

Posted: 5/16/2008 6:43:13 PM EDT

[#24]

Pricey

www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=837001&t=11082005

Posted: 5/16/2008 7:03:45 PM EDT

[#25]

To expensive for regular usage more of a Deer round.

Posted: 5/16/2008 7:05:00 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
the Geneva Convention as specifications on what "type" of ammo in humane...yeah I know, makes no sense.

wrong

...please explain then

,

I in no way consider myself a legal expert, just a translation in my one simple minded words

Posted: 5/16/2008 8:10:08 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
the Geneva Convention as specifications on what "type" of ammo in humane...yeah I know, makes no sense.

wrong

...please explain then

,

I in no way consider myself a legal expert, just a translation in my one simple minded words

Because the Geneva Convention(s) don't pertain to the laws of warfare, only how you can treat combatants and non-combatants.
The Hague Convention(s) cover the laws of warfare, and do specifically mention prohibited types of munitions and such.

And The US is indeed a signitory of both the Hague Convention(s){all but one specifying how certain types of gas can be used which was later incorporated into another convention which the US did sign} and all the pertinent Geneva Convention(s). I only post this shit maybe once, twice a month when someone insisted that HP ammo is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, or that the US didn't sign any of it and we can "do whatever we want".

Posted: 5/16/2008 8:25:20 PM EDT

[#28]

Laws of War :
Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899

The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,

Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,

Declare as follows:

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.

The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.

The present Declaration shall be ratified as soon as possible.

The ratification shall be deposited at The Hague.

A proces-verbal shall be drawn up on the receipt of each ratification, a copy of which, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to all the Contracting Powers.

The non-Signatory Powers may adhere to the present Declaration. For this purpose they must make their adhesion known to the Contracting Powers by means of a written notification addressed to the Netherlands Government, and by it communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.

In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present Declaration, such denunciation shall not take effect until a year after the notification made in writing to the Netherlands Government, and forthwith communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers.

This denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power.

In faith of which the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Declaration, and have affixed their seals thereto.

Done at The Hague the 29th July, 1899, in a single copy, which shall be kept in the archives of the Netherlands Government, and of which copies, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to the Contracting Powers.

[Signatures]

Posted: 5/16/2008 11:56:24 PM EDT

[#29]

The Hague Accord doesn't even apply to the GWOT since its not a "state" we are fighting, but terrorists. This dove tails into an earlier JAG ruling that okays the use of the 147grn OSM, 147grn Hydrashok and 230grn "Black Talon" amongst a few others. Technically, any accord/convention we choose to follow in reguards to terrorists is a "favor", not an obligation.

The 77grn SMK, SS109 and M193 bullets are all perfectly legal*according to America* yet leave very catastrophic wounds when used within thier envelopes. A fragmented SMK or M193 is pretty gnarly, certainly more than a "conventional" expanding JHP/HP.

Nuclear weapons, VX gas, CBU's and other devastating systems that can kill hundreds of people at once are legitmate tools of war, but somehow HP's are too cruel and inhumane. In 1899, when this considered, these weapons didn't exist and a FMJ rifle bullet would have caused a relatively "uncompicated" wound compared to the "barbarism" of a "dum-dum" wound. So much has changed in warfare that these rules should be ignored. Getting shot with anything is really going to suck, might as well make for maximum suckage for the enemy. Given the fact that its extremely difficult to hit someone while under fire on a dynamic battlefield, getting a bullet that will kill with one shot*short of a .50 BMG* would be a huge benefit.

Maybe I am psycho, but I don't think there is such thing as "rules" in a death match. Any techniques/methods/weapons are acceptible when fighting for your life.

Posted: 5/17/2008 12:07:44 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I've seen some paperwork from the DOD lawyers that it's thier interpatation of the GC that HP ammo is NOT Illegal for anti-terrorist work as performed by Special Op's personal. HP use by normal troops still illegal. Except for OTM (Open Tip Match) ammo as that's been determined to not function like a "true" Hollow Point.

That's interesting. I don't know why SOCOM wouldn't have to conform to the same JAG rulings as other military units.

This is correct. Terrorist enemt = non-treaty compliant rounds. Uniformed soldier from another nation = treaty compliant rounds.

Posted: 5/17/2008 12:56:27 AM EDT

[#31]

can you imagine the cost of ammo for us if the whole military switched to a all copper solid like the Barnes?

suddenly we would all be shooting bullets with thin steel jackets.

Posted: 5/17/2008 3:56:07 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.

Unless the terrorists have their signed contracts on them at the point they entered this 'war', it seems that they are SOL in SOCOM's eyes.

Posted: 5/17/2008 4:12:23 AM EDT

[#33]

Any idea if this solid copper round would foul the bore more than copper/lead rounds? I love Barnes bullets for hunting, but they tend to be "harder" in that a copper/lead round tends to adjust (ever so slightly) to the bore.

Posted: 5/17/2008 4:15:30 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899

...The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power...

If this is the case, there are very few countries that still apply. Think of how many nations have been created since 1899 that could not have been signatories. Going by "the letter of the law," I guess we could've used HP's against the Soviets but not current Russian soldiers. Assuming Czarist Russia was a signatory, of course.

Posted: 5/17/2008 9:54:11 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
The Hague Accord doesn't even apply to the GWOT since its not a "state" we are fighting, but terrorists. This dove tails into an earlier JAG ruling that okays the use of the 147grn OSM, 147grn Hydrashok and 230grn "Black Talon" amongst a few others. Technically, any accord/convention we choose to follow in reguards to terrorists is a "favor", not an obligation.

The "they're not a state" argument is fragile-the Cong weren't "a state" either... The North Vietnamese WERE a state, and look at what that meant: NOTHING.

Quoted:
The 77grn SMK, SS109 and M193 bullets are all perfectly legal*according to America* yet leave very catastrophic wounds when used within thier envelopes. A fragmented SMK or M193 is pretty gnarly, certainly more than a "conventional" expanding JHP/HP.

The "catastrophic" nature of wounds caused by those bullets is because they are spitzer-type bullets. This was recognized as something spitzers do before the end of the 19th century. On the other hand, when people at the Dum-Dum arsenal in Colonial India started cutting off the tips of .303 bullets to expose almost all of the cores of those bullets, they produced exceptionally devastating results. It's a different issue altogether.

Quoted:
Nuclear weapons, VX gas, CBU's and other devastating systems that can kill hundreds of people at once are legitmate tools of war, but somehow HP's are too cruel and inhumane. In 1899, when this considered, these weapons didn't exist and a FMJ rifle bullet would have caused a relatively "uncompicated" wound compared to the "barbarism" of a "dum-dum" wound. So much has changed in warfare that these rules should be ignored. Getting shot with anything is really going to suck, might as well make for maximum suckage for the enemy. Given the fact that its extremely difficult to hit someone while under fire on a dynamic battlefield, getting a bullet that will kill with one shot*short of a .50 BMG* would be a huge benefit.

The issue is not one of lethality, but one of inflicting "unnecessary suffering." A bullet that kills thoroughly and immediately is not a problem. One that causes grievous yet non-lethal wounds IS a problem. That's where these rules come in. Not only is it unnecessary to develop and field ammunition that causes unnecessary suffering, it's inefficient. Shoot the bad guys to kill them, not to make 'em suffer. That's the point.

Quoted:
Maybe I am psycho, but I don't think there is such thing as "rules" in a death match. Any techniques/methods/weapons are acceptible when fighting for your life.

It's not a "death match." Those are something you do in computer games. Warfare is the extension of political will through the use of force. It must be exceptionally well controlled, and applied as precisely as possible in order to be useful. Otherwise it is thuggery and barbarism. Our GIs are professionals, not some rabble with guns, nor some hoard of armed juveniles like we've seen in various parts of the world. They do their jobs as dispassionately, efficiently, and effectively as possible. What we see in conflicts around the world is gangs of armed men (or boys), acting as predators instead of disciplined units, and causing untold carnage for the sole purpose of getting their rocks off. WE DO NOT DO THAT.

Sorry for the rant, but to say that our Soldiers and Marines should behave like those crap-bags in Somalia because the other guys do just gets me going.

Posted: 5/17/2008 10:48:56 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
On the other hand, when people at the Dum-Dum arsenal in Colonial India started cutting off the tips of .303 bullets to expose almost all of the cores of those bullets, they produced exceptionally devastating results. It's a different issue altogether.

Anymore info to add to the above? Accuracy? What other rounds can this safely be done with?

Posted: 5/17/2008 1:57:32 PM EDT

[#37]

I'm getting the "scoop" on this new round through official channels...stand by.

Maj

Posted: 5/17/2008 6:33:11 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
On the other hand, when people at the Dum-Dum arsenal in Colonial India started cutting off the tips of .303 bullets to expose almost all of the cores of those bullets, they produced exceptionally devastating results. It's a different issue altogether.

Anymore info to add to the above? Accuracy? What other rounds can this safely be done with?

I wouldn't say that ANY round can "safely" be handled this way. If you're looking for game bullets, there are plenty around. If you're looking to use this sort of thing for self-defense, use those game bullets.

Posted: 5/17/2008 7:14:24 PM EDT

[#39]

I'd guess a 70 gr. solid would be a bit long, any one know how it compares to 75 and 77 gr led core bullets. Us 1/9 people might be SOL when it comes to this rnd.

Posted: 5/17/2008 8:07:15 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I've seen some paperwork from the DOD lawyers that it's thier interpatation of the GC that HP ammo is NOT Illegal for anti-terrorist work as performed by Special Op's personal. HP use by normal troops still illegal. Except for OTM (Open Tip Match) ammo as that's been determined to not function like a "true" Hollow Point.

That's interesting. I don't know why SOCOM wouldn't have to conform to the same JAG rulings as other military units.

They probably see that since SOCOM isnt actively fighting uniformed troops but terrorist civilians, they dont apply to Geneva or Hague. Now if big Army switched to the civy killing only bullets and suddenly we got into a fight with Iranian or Syrian uniformed troops, then we have a major war violation. It might be somewhat easy for SOCOM to switch back to war legal ammo, but big Army could never do that and remain a fighting force without making the hippies mad.

Posted: 5/17/2008 8:11:07 PM EDT

[#41]

Is there a identical FMJ projectile that I could use as a training round that would be cheaper than shooting a $1.50 fighting round while giving the same velocity and POI? Seems like I have some cool new loads to make up.

Posted: 5/17/2008 11:45:02 PM EDT

[#42]

So what makes the TSX better than Mk262?

Posted: 5/18/2008 5:40:40 AM EDT

[#43]

What makes the TSX beter than the 77gr SMK?

I have shot hundreds of hogs with both of these loads out of my AR, I immediately noticed a huge difference in the TSX. Heres why.

After numerous autopsies we found everything Barnes' claims to be true. The bullet expanded fully within 1.5 inches of entry, expansion was .51 caliber and most bullets exited leaving (2) holes to bleed out of. So out of a 5.56 you are pushing a 50cal. hole through something, pretty lethal! The other thing we all noticed was the fact that due to the rapid expansion A LOT of energy was put on target...how much you ask? The 5.56 TSX was hitting noticebly harder than the 147gr FMJ out of a 7.62. We were all sold on this little bullet. We shot 96 hogs in one morning from a helo so we had a pretty good sample.

The 77gr SMK pretty much punches a hole in stuff with little to no expansion unless a bone is struck.

The TSX is a longer bullet so 1:8 is the limit, it will not stabilize in my 1:9 barrels.

It is expensive but WELL WORTH IT when you see the results!!!

I'll post pics of the recovered bullets when I have time, they are picture perfect.

Capitol P

Posted: 5/18/2008 5:43:12 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
They probably see that since SOCOM isnt actively fighting uniformed troops but terrorist civilians, they dont apply to Geneva or Hague. Now if big Army switched to the civy killing only bullets and suddenly we got into a fight with Iranian or Syrian uniformed troops, then we have a major war violation. It might be somewhat easy for SOCOM to switch back to war legal ammo, but big Army could never do that and remain a fighting force without making the hippies mad.

Terrorist fighters are NOT civilians. They are unlawful combatants because they do not conform to the basic requirements of lawful combatants-to wear distinctive clothing (as in some sort of uniform), and to conduct themselves so as to minimize the potential harm to civilians around them. Note that even the Partisans in France during WWII wore a distinctive uniform-their black berets and often a scarf. They were not dealt with appropriately by the Nazis, but we're not surprised, right? Anyway, by definition, terrorists are criminals using extreme violence for their political ends. "Insurgents" are also unlawful combatants for the same reasons, but they seem to be showing up just to stir the pot (or take their shot at becoming a "martyr").

Posted: 5/18/2008 6:18:41 AM EDT

[#45]

From my understanding, it doesn't matter who the enemy is. The military has to follow the rules of land warfare regardless.

Posted: 5/18/2008 6:35:35 AM EDT

[#46]

Posted: 5/18/2008 1:21:14 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Sexy, I hope we get a similar product on the civvie market for less that $20 per 20rnd box.

That's not going to happen any time soon. I cost me $67.53 for just 100 of the Barnes 70 grain TSX. That's 67 cents just for the bullet.

Your logic still applies insofar as much as price is concerned, but the article said "based on" the TSX.....

Edit:

The solid copper design is believed to be based on a commercial design (the Barnes Triple-Shock X) that was introduced five years ago.

Posted: 5/18/2008 1:30:06 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
can you imagine the cost of ammo for us if the whole military switched to a all copper solid like the Barnes?

suddenly we would all be shooting bullets with thin steel jackets.

This is more of an inside joke in the Texas Hometown Forum, but can you imagine how much the incidence of copper thievery would shoot up?

Posted: 5/18/2008 2:03:17 PM EDT

[#49]

Expense seems to be the only reason USSOCOM hadn't gone sooner, but now that it's through their supply chain..

Consider that a trained special operations warrior is worth 4-5x all their gear put together, and that's disregarding psychological and political value in denieable operations: better ammunition is always a bargain. Considering the cost of weapons and electronic aids to increase hit probability in as many cases as possible, I'm somewhat amazed they haven't done this sooner with PDW-esque configured short barreled carbines.

I don't see this going rampant anywhere else, but good on SOCOM for putting the best possible rounds downrange.

:ETA:
TSX would still be a horrible choice in a military-on-military conflict I'm assuming. Anything that expands that well in a soft target should be easily defeated by LIII body armor, putting our forces back at a tremendous disadvantage.

Posted: 5/18/2008 2:05:51 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
From my understanding, it doesn't matter who the enemy is. The military has to follow the rules of land warfare regardless.

I have heard that the only thing we follow now is the Geneva 1949 Conference.

If so, Hague of 1899 covering expanding bullets is no longer relevant.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - New Brown tipped ammo for SOCOM? (Page 1 of 3)

AR-15 » Ammunition

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us