Quoted: Since you have stopped just shy of calling me a liar I would like some direction as to where I can find these personal experiences from people who have had the 77gr bullet frag on them in REAL flesh AND Quoted: "expand" was a poor choice of words on my part to say they do something other than poke a 224 hole in something.  They actually disintegrate about 6 inches into stuff, nothing left but grey goo.

So they do, or do not fragment?

I have not shot any hogs or other large animals with 75 or 77gr bullets, but I have shot a few varmints with them, like rockchucks, coyotes and jackrabbits... and seen the fragmentation myself. The folks on the pointy end of the spear seem to like 5.56 TAP loaded with 75gr BTHP and/or Mk262 loaded with 77 SMK's.... and report good wounding characterisitcs... experts in the field of wound ballistics agree, and testing in gel indicates fragmentation is happening...

So... There lies the case for fragmentation of the heavy OTM bullets. Contrary to what you report.

The TSX bullets have their place too... and by no means are they a poor bullet choice for killing larger game with a .224 caliber weapon. If penetration is a concern, I'm sure they'll shine in that application.

Back on topic... so far, its seems to be pure conjecture that the bullet used in this new ammo is the 70gr TSX. I'd like to know specifics.

Quoted: <snip> I'm not seing that the TSX would be superiour at all at longer ranges - past 500m there are some drawbacks for solid copper - it looks like they're doing this in shorter carbines intended exclusively for urban/short range work where the range cieling is frequently under 200m, and that a losing the ability to cause catastrophic damage using a fragmenting 5.56 bullet is offset by a) using shorter barreled carbines and b) more consistent expansion being more important for single-hit incapacitation than maximizing effect downrange only a percentage of the time.

Curious to know what the drawbacks are for solid copper past 500m ...

Quoted: I have used all the bullets mentioned in this thread on flesh and hands down the TSX out shines the others...NOT to say the others are not great bullets but the TSX just flat kills better. CapitolP

You wouldn't happen to be the guy I talked to from another board who did some pest control for TPWD, would you?

I'm not against this barnes bullet.  It seems pretty cool.  And in fact, now I have another option for deer hunting here.  As I can not legally use the OTM type bullets in my state.  Regs state that it has to be an "expanding type bullet".

If hog hunting is the requirement, AR15KittyKat has proven M193 to be a very effective round.  That guy has taken more Hogs and sizeable hogs than I have ever seen.  Using exclusively Q3131A.  Until he moved up to his super duper M1A sage stocked beast.  But he didn't do that because the M193 out of his 16"er wasn't working.  Some of the posters on here know who I'm talking about.

What's my point?  My point is, downplaying the Mk262 as an ineffective round is not going to be a popular idea here.  Claiming it won't fragment at all goes against so much testing showing the MK262 to be a superior round to either M193 and M855.  Now, I personally haven't done any testing but enough guys on this board alone have reported that the MK262 does a better job in the fragmenting and leaving a messy wound category than the others used.  

Now, again, I'm not against our guys using this round.  Especially if it is more effective.  But you may have to do better than just a claim of shooting a bunch of hogs in one day.  

It has been enlightening.  I hope Black Hills does load this bullet.  And it would be very interesting to see more experience in real life with this bullet.  

Oh brother, we got a brand spanking new member that posts so much incorrect info, he tries and cover it up with corrections in every subsequent but it all still wreaks of gunshow BS.

Anybody that thinks a bullet that expands to .52" beats a fragmenting 5.56 round like mk262 (wow, some bullets fragment! how about that?) ought to just use rifles that fire handgun rounds, you will get even more expansion, maybe some "propeller action" too

Shooting animals and drawing conclusions like this is bubba science. People who spout off about it here never seem to carry it out with in any semblance of scientific testing and are always influenced by the power of suggestion. I'm sure if they were given Extreme Shock ammo, they would be jumping up and down about how deadly it is too, at least in  in posts 1-100 until they are force fed some actual facts.

wise jake

No.  No work for TP&W.

CapitolP

Zhukov

I am basing my opinion of the Mk262 on actual testimony coming from soldiers and medics, none of which have ACTUALLY seen the mk262 fragment.  In the lab/gelatin it would appear that it is but I guess the proof is in the pudding...or battle field as it were.

I also do not want to come across as dogmatic in MY findings as they are not necessarily scientific.

CapitolP

Mataba

Just saw your post about me...not real impressed.  All I am doing is trying to give info on a round that I have put on flesh and blood...HUNDREDS of times versus other rounds I have put on flesh and blood HUNDREDS of times.

Question.  If the MK262 is as good as the labs suggest why in the world is socom starting to switch/look for a replacement in such a short service life?

Question.  What is "gun show BS"?

AND I am not a new member just because I have not posted in the past.

Sorry if I have ruffled feathers guys, just passing on first hand experiece.

CapitolP

As promised...here is some more info:

Modified on 5/15/08 -- Some information has been redacted/removed from this
article by the author/editor (David Crane) for OPSEC.


A number of months ago, DefenseReview was informed by one of our contacts in
the U.S. military Special Operations (SpecOps) community that our Special
Operations Forces (SOF) assaulters/operators now have a new, specialized
5.56x45mm NATO (5.56mm NATO)/.223 Rem. round at their disposal that's been
unofficially referred to as the "5.56 Optimized" (pronounced "Five Five Six
Optimized") and/or "Brown Tip", because the round has, appropriately, a
brown tip.

The "optimized" nomenclature apparently refers to the fact that the round is
optimized for subcarbines/SBRs (Short Barreled Rifles) and carbines from
10.5-14.5 inches, in order to provide optimum terminal ballistics out of the
shortened weapon platform. We don't know the maximum effective combat
distance for the round out of a 10.3"-10.5" barrel, but we're guessing
approx. 300-350 yards (unconfirmed/unverified). At present, we believe that
the specific weapons for which the round was optimized are the...

10.5" HK416 gas-piston/op-rod-driven SBR and 14.5" SOPMOD Colt M4A1 Carbine,
although the the 10.3" Mk18 CQBR (Close Quarters Battle Receiver)
direct-gas-impingement-driven SBR may also have used as a
testbed/platform-focus for the new round (but we don't know, at this point).
We'll try to get confirmation/verification on this. Right now, it's just
rumor.

Defense Review does not have all the facts about this ammo, yet, but we've
been informed by one of our sources that the new round (the bullet, itself),
rumored to be manufactured by [Redacted], is made of [Redacted] ([Redacted],
all the way through) and weighs 70 grains, as opposed to the 62-grain M855
ball round. It's possible that the 5.56 Optimized/Brown-Tip bullet is a
militarized offshoot of, and therefore benefits from, [Redacted] bullet
a.k.a. [Redacted] bullet technology. However, we're not yet sure whether the
5.56 Optimized round is round nose a.k.a. solid point, open-tip, or hollow
point. The limited information we have at present would lead us to believe
that it's a solid-tip round, but we're not sure yet.

Quoted: 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.

The Barnes 70 grain TSX is a very long bullet for its weight and caliber.  At a nominal length of 1.037" it is longer than the heavier 77 grain Sierra MatchKing.






Besides being a long bullet, the 70 grain TSX has a specific gravity much lower than a copper jacketed/lead core bullet due to its sold copper construction.  For example, the Hornady 75 grain BTHP has a specific gravity of approximately 10.3, while the Barnes 70 grain TSX has a specific gravity of only 8.9.

The Barnes 70 grain TSX will be unstable from a 1:9" twist barrel with a gyroscopic stability factor of less than 1 at all velocities.  The 70 grain TSX will only be marginally stable in a 1:8" twist barrel with a G.S.F. of 1.05 at 2500 fps.  A 1:7" twist barrel will produce acceptable stability with the 70 grain TSX with a G.S.F. of 1.37 at 2500 fps.

Quoted: Quoted: 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. The Barnes 70 grain TSX is a very long bullet for its weight and caliber.  At a nominal length of 1.037" it is longer than the heavier 77 grain Sierra MatchKing. www.box.net/shared/static/m6fiuzhwkc.jpg Besides being a long bullet, the 70 grain TSX has a specific gravity much lower than a copper jacketed/lead core bullet due to its sold copper construction.  For example, the Hornady 75 grain BTHP has a specific gravity of approximately 10.3, while the Barnes 70 grain TSX has a specific gravity of only 8.9. The Barnes 70 grain TSX will be unstable from a 1:9" twist barrel with a gyroscopic stability factor of less than 1 at all velocities.  The 70 grain TSX will only be marginally stable in a 1:8" twist barrel with a G.S.F. of 1.05 at 2500 fps.  A 1:7" twist barrel will produce acceptable stability with the 70 grain TSX with a G.S.F. of 1.37 at 2500 fps. www.box.net/shared/static/6tordomos4.jpg

Stick with the 68gr OTM, I guess.

Quoted: The Barnes 70 grain TSX is a very long bullet for its weight and caliber.  At a nominal length of 1.037" it is longer than the heavier 77 grain Sierra MatchKing. www.box.net/shared/static/m6fiuzhwkc.jpg Besides being a long bullet, the 70 grain TSX has a specific gravity much lower than a copper jacketed/lead core bullet due to its sold copper construction.  For example, the Hornady 75 grain BTHP has a specific gravity of approximately 10.3, while the Barnes 70 grain TSX has a specific gravity of only 8.9. The Barnes 70 grain TSX will be unstable from a 1:9" twist barrel with a gyroscopic stability factor of less than 1 at all velocities.  The 70 grain TSX will only be marginally stable in a 1:8" twist barrel with a G.S.F. of 1.05 at 2500 fps.  A 1:7" twist barrel will produce acceptable stability with the 70 grain TSX with a G.S.F. of 1.37 at 2500 fps. www.box.net/shared/static/6tordomos4.jpg

Molon,

In your estimation, how much of an increase in performance (terminal and otherwise) would you speculate there is to be gained by using the 70gr. bullet vs. an otherwise identical 62gr. bullet - provided, of course, that a 62gr. bullet is available ?

Only marginally better performance ... or, by leaps-and-bounds ??

Also,

Quoted: Quoted: <snip> I'm not seing that the TSX would be superiour at all at longer ranges - past 500m there are some drawbacks for solid copper - it looks like they're doing this in shorter carbines intended exclusively for urban/short range work where the range cieling is frequently under 200m, and that a losing the ability to cause catastrophic damage using a fragmenting 5.56 bullet is offset by a) using shorter barreled carbines and b) more consistent expansion being more important for single-hit incapacitation than maximizing effect downrange only a percentage of the time. Curious to know what the drawbacks are for solid copper past 500m ...

  ^ ^ ^ Still wondering about this ^ ^ ^

OK, so its basically a solid copper barrier round. What does it do that a standard bonded soft point can't?

I still fail to see why this round is so special.

Quoted: OK, so its basically a solid copper barrier round. What does it do that a standard bonded soft point can't? I still fail to see why this round is so special.

I'm not really sure what this round does for the military. I do know that I am loading up some for my 270 WSM to use for Elk this year because their reputation on Big Game is so dam good. It's really the best 150 gr bullet I can get for my caliber and use.

Quoted: Also, Quoted: Quoted: <snip> I'm not seing that the TSX would be superiour at all at longer ranges - past 500m there are some drawbacks for solid copper - it looks like they're doing this in shorter carbines intended exclusively for urban/short range work where the range cieling is frequently under 200m, and that a losing the ability to cause catastrophic damage using a fragmenting 5.56 bullet is offset by a) using shorter barreled carbines and b) more consistent expansion being more important for single-hit incapacitation than maximizing effect downrange only a percentage of the time. Curious to know what the drawbacks are for solid copper past 500m ...   ^ ^ ^ Still wondering about this ^ ^ ^

Yea, cause the only reason the CheyTac works out to 2K is that its a Copper/Nickle alloy.  

Quoted: Quoted: Also, Quoted: Quoted: <snip> I'm not seing that the TSX would be superiour at all at longer ranges - past 500m there are some drawbacks for solid copper - it looks like they're doing this in shorter carbines intended exclusively for urban/short range work where the range cieling is frequently under 200m, and that a losing the ability to cause catastrophic damage using a fragmenting 5.56 bullet is offset by a) using shorter barreled carbines and b) more consistent expansion being more important for single-hit incapacitation than maximizing effect downrange only a percentage of the time. Curious to know what the drawbacks are for solid copper past 500m ...   ^ ^ ^ Still wondering about this ^ ^ ^ Yea, cause the only reason the CheyTac works out to 2K is that its a Copper/Nickle alloy.

Taking Molons post above, could it have anything to do the with the specific rate of gravity of this round, the reduced velocity of the round at extended ranges, and current rate of twist of current platforms leading to instability at extended ranges? Not so much that the bullet itself is all copper, but more akin to the length vs. weight of an all copper round as compared to a copper jacketed lead round...?

Using Molons chart, at what distance would the TSX cross the threshold of stable into marginal, what effect would this have, and would the TSX benefit from a faster rate of twist beyond that distance?

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.

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.

In other words: No expanding bullets. No soft-points. No dum-dums. The Hague Convention is silent on the use of bullets that fragment, however. We've chosen to follow the letter of the treaty.

More info will be available as the various barrier blind programs pan out. Hopefully, there will be something aside from RUMINT available within the next few weeks. Until then:


www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/gandy.pdf

You guys know I'll make some up and test it in a number of different rifles as I search for the perfect round.  I'll post within a month on reloading.

height=8

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, the Geneva Convention does not address ammunition or even weapons that can be used.  The GC merely addresses the treatment of, actions against, and actions that effect unarmed soldiers and/or non-combatants.

The outlawing of the use of certain types of weapons (including high expansion ammunition) by a military force is actually addressed by the Hague Peace Convention, which incidentally, the United States is not a signatory of.  Having not signed the Hague Peace Convention, the United States is not regulated on what type of ammunition or weapons they may employ.  In short, the U.S. can use whatever ammunition they wish.  The down side to this is that the restrictions of the Hague Peace Convention on signing nations is nullified if the U.S. enters the conflict.  In other words, since the U.S is not bound by this convention, neither are any other country involved in a conflict in which the U.S. is actively engaged (no matter which side of the conflict they are on).

The U.S. is a member of NATO, but NATO does not regulate weapons or ammunition either.  The purpose of establishing "NATO ammunition" is to standardize the ammunition used by member nations to allow for cross supply to participating nations in a conflict.

While the U.S. does voluntarily try to stay within the standards of the Hague Peace Convention, they are not bound by it nor do they fully comply with it.  If the U.S. decided to adopt a high expansion round, they are perfectly free to do so with the only repercussions being possible political fallout from other nations.

Doc

Quoted: More info will be available as the various barrier blind programs pan out. Hopefully, there will be something aside from RUMINT available within the next few weeks. Until then: www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/gandy.pdf

I posted these pics in another thread but they seem pertinant to this thread also.   They're some great pics of gel shots from a couple of "barrier blind" loads. (Courtesy of Dr. G.K. Roberts)

Molon, that seems consistent with the intention to use OTM rounds in a designated marksman/sniper application while a "barrier blind" round that upsets faster and better looks consistent with general issue.  Great pictures, too—they sure get the point across.

Quoted: Quoted: More info will be available as the various barrier blind programs pan out. Hopefully, there will be something aside from RUMINT available within the next few weeks. Until then: www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/gandy.pdf I posted these pics in another thread but they seem pertinant to this thread also.   They're some great pics of gel shots from a couple of "barrier blind" loads. (Courtesy of Dr. G.K. Roberts) Anymore info on hte ATK 77gr bonded ammo? Is it better than TBBC? www.box.net/shared/static/pvwxg92808.jpg www.box.net/shared/static/nwnzod2m8s.jpg

Quoted: Quoted: <snip> I'm not seing that the TSX would be superiour at all at longer ranges - past 500m there are some drawbacks for solid copper - it looks like they're doing this in shorter carbines intended exclusively for urban/short range work where the range cieling is frequently under 200m, and that a losing the ability to cause catastrophic damage using a fragmenting 5.56 bullet is offset by a) using shorter barreled carbines and b) more consistent expansion being more important for single-hit incapacitation than maximizing effect downrange only a percentage of the time. Curious to know what the drawbacks are for solid copper past 500m ...

I thought this ammo was made for a SBR AR15  10.5 and 14.5 MAX

shooting 500yards???

Wow alot of info here.

Is this the "New round" everybody was talking about within the last year.

OTM loads dont expand, they tumble and break up just like FMJ - that's why they are legal.  My SWAG would be that this Barnes bullet is redesigned to perform similarly.  A 70gr all-copper bullet would be very long and probably very efficient at early upset (tumbling) in tissue for good anti-personnel performance.

Quoted: OTM loads dont expand, they tumble and break up just like FMJ - that's why they are legal.  My SWAG would be that this Barnes bullet is redesigned to perform similarly.  A 70gr all-copper bullet would be very long and probably very efficient at early upset (tumbling) in tissue for good anti-personnel performance.

Not if it's the Triple Shock as reported in the first post.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: <snip> I'm not seing that the TSX would be superiour at all at longer ranges - past 500m there are some drawbacks for solid copper - it looks like they're doing this in shorter carbines intended exclusively for urban/short range work where the range cieling is frequently under 200m, and that a losing the ability to cause catastrophic damage using a fragmenting 5.56 bullet is offset by a) using shorter barreled carbines and b) more consistent expansion being more important for single-hit incapacitation than maximizing effect downrange only a percentage of the time. Curious to know what the drawbacks are for solid copper past 500m ... I thought this ammo was made for a SBR AR15  10.5 and 14.5 MAX shooting 500yards???

But that wasn't the question ...

That barrier blind bullet looks a whole lot like the Federal Trophy Bonded Tip bullet with the polymer tip removed.  

 Federal - Trophy Bonded Tip

The NSN & DODIC is 1305-0X-X00-1351-X135

www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

Quoted: www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

How did a thread about a rumored Barnes Bullet .mil ammo turn into an advertisement for your pet project?

I opened that PDF hoping it had somehting to do with the topic and instead I get hit with an infomercial from the 6.8 mafia.

Interesting stuff, but hardly on topic.

Ace hardware is all out of brown paint.

Quoted: Please leave the moderating to me. Thanks - Z.

Quoted:
Oh brother, we got a brand spanking new member that posts so much incorrect info, he tries and cover it up with corrections in every subsequent but it all still wreaks of gunshow BS.
quote]



humorous irony: the guy you're slamming as a "spanking new member" registered way before you.

MudBug,

Get a clue.  

We are working on several projects--including enhanced 5.56 mm, ARC (Advanced Rifle Caliber--including intermediate calibers like the 6.8 mm), improved 7.62 x 51 mm types, as well as on longer range sniper programs.  

The important info in the linked NDIA briefing with respect to this topic is the clear list of criteria on how to assess the effectiveness of combat ammunition--irrespective of caliber.

DocGKR
Thanks for posting the info...really informative and interesting.  Are yall testing the "brown tip"?

capitolP

Any new info?

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.

It was my understanding that the JAG folks figured HP ammo used againest Terrorests was more a kin to law inforcement rather then triditional war.  I'll have to see if I can dig out the paperwork somewhere in the mess of my house.

Quoted: Quoted: Oh brother, we got a brand spanking new member that posts so much incorrect info, he tries and cover it up with corrections in every subsequent but it all still wreaks of gunshow BS. quote] humorous irony: the guy you're slamming as a "spanking new member" registered way before you.

I've been here a lot longer than when I registered this nick Regardless, he could have been around since the mailing list days, but when someone has 8 posts, and makes patently false statements, I will chalk it up as cluelessness.

matebe


What were my "patently false statements"????

just google "W. Hays Parks, Special Assistant for Law of War Matters to the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General"

He's made many legal decisions regarding the LEGAL use of OTM, .50cal vs people, etc, etc.

Z, it would seem that it's an official (or preliminary) JAG "opinion."

Looks like it was submitted "for the signature" of MAJ Overholt.

Would be interesting to know if the Major ever inked on it.

I'll ask around and get back.