U.S. Army Switching to Hollow Point Ammunition

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...-s-army-switching-to-hollow-point-ammunition/

This is interesting. Switching to hollow point ammunition will certainly increase the effectiveness of the 9mm NATO cartridge, as it is lacking in performance in it's standard full metal jacketed configuration. I imagine that if M855 was modified a bit the effectiveness could be improved drastically as the M855 is relatively stable in flesh compared to the M193.

The only downside I really see is gun control advocates screaming "let's ban hollow pointz cuz itz militaryz gradez ammunitionz!!!1111" while bleeding from the eyes (or some equally silly and irrelevant utterance).

And maybe countries who did sign the Hogue complaining that the US will be using more lethal ammunition. But as the article mentions, those same countries give hollow point ammunition to their police forces.

For anyone who does not know, hollow point ammunition is manufactured with an open tip of the bullet. The pressure caused by hitting flesh (or some other soft material) causes the open space to expand into the shape of the mushroom. This expansion slows the bullet and transfers more energy to the target. Your typical full metal jacket projectile will pass through the human body without causing as much tissue disruption. There are some exceptions, such as when the 5.56 NATO M193 tumbles and fragments inside the human body.

 

Interesting. I did not see anything about sticking to 9mm. Any idea if they are changing back to .45 or keeping 9mm? I think going with hollow point is a great idea. If they do stick with 9mm, it will definitely improve stopping power.

 

Unless the target is wearing body armor.

 

That is true, but a lot of body armor will stop 9mm ball ammo as well. Our IBA's and IOTV's with plates in certainly will stop 9mm. Well, either way, a sidearm is your "oh (*)(*)(*)(*)" weapon anyway, unless you are an MP. The only time I used a sidearm in Iraq was to go to the chow hall, because I didn't feel like lugging my M4 around, lol.

 

Handguns do not defeat body armor.

- - - Updated - - -

9mm is:
Easier to shoot
Less recoil
Higher magazine capacity

So I do hope they stick with 9mm.

 

That's only partially true. A lot of it depends upon the sectional density of the bullet, it's length and how the rifling will stabilize the bullet. The M193 yawed because it was unstable with a 1:12 twist. Put the same round in a 1:7 twist and it becomes much more stable. Some HP ammo has a HP because that's the way it was manufactured and not for expansion. A handgun bullet is a different animal because of the lower velocities.

 

I would think that if the military changes the bullet in the 5.56 round, it would be polymer tipped.
Expansion in a HP is a hydraulic function. The cavity fills with matter that is high in water content. Water can't compress, so the bullet deforms.
This is why the FBI tests ammo in various types and thicknesses of fabric, covering ballistic gel. If the HP is fouled with fabric, or other material like gypsum from wallboard, the bullet fails to expand.
The first polymer tipped bullets were the Nosler ballistic tips. In flight, the poly tip contributes to a higher ballistic coefficient. Upon impact, the polymer inside the HP cavity of the bullet liquefies, and initiates bullet disruption.
Using polymer this way, the bullet can penetrate things like clothing, hide, walls or sheet metal, and still deform very well upon impact. The perfect candidate for a military bullet might be the Hornady 77 gr. V-Max.
BTW- Those billions of rounds that you heard about homeland security buying in .40 S&W use the Winchester 180 gr. HST bullet. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see the military switch to the same for handguns. The Gov. knows as well as any civilian that consolidating calibers makes everything cheaper. I don't like to think about any reason why LE would prefer to have the ability to receive ammo supplies from field military, but the times, they are a changin'.

 

I am going off of what I have seen in comparisons between M193 and M855.

 

Again, rifle bullets are a different animal than pistol bullets. The latter are generally always stable. The shorter, the heavier for caliber and the faster the barrel twist the more stable the round will be for rifle bullets. It depends upon what you want it to do. You can make deeply penetrating bullets that will expand, or you can make it unstable so they will yaw ( tumbling is not technically correct) For instance copper or copper alloy bullets, that are lighter then lead cored bullets will have higher velocity and will penetrate well if they have a fast twist. Stress the ogive with a HP and/ or cut stress points and you'll have a deeply penetrating but expanding bullet. There are also velocity parameters for which a round is best designed. Bonding the bullet will stop jacket separation and aid penetration. The shape also affects the performance. Put most of the weight in the rear of a slow twist round with a high sectional density bullet and it will yaw. Change the shape and put the weight forward and it will penetrate. Do you want accuracy or terminal performance? In short terminal performance and accuracy will vary in the M193 and M855 depending upon the barrel twist as well as barrel length.

 

Wow QLB!! You got it all right. What you refer to as "cut stress points" are skives. Basically, these weakened areas near the forward section of the bullet induce a kind of "crumple zone", which initiates bullet deformation.
I was thinking that the military might just as likely switch to solid copper bullets, but I wonder at that, because the density of copper is so much less than lead.
Currently, the effective range of the M-4 carbine firing 62 gr. M-855 ball ammo is about 120 meters. This, because the bullet has to impact at around 2,600 fps or greater to initiate bullet upset and fragmentation.
I think the current copper equivalent that is in use by DOD right now is 38 gr. Maybe 43.
It would be interesting to see how much velocity is gained, how fast it dissipates, and how that works out for effective range.

 

Isn't that illegal to be used on the battlefield? To much damage or something?

 

i use this 115 grain round here [video=youtube;uu4NFXGA_G0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu4NFXGA_G0[/video] in my personal 9mm s&w less recoil and smoke makes it very accurate i can hit my target more then any otheres
note the recoil very light time 3:30 video [video=youtube;wJZFZFmBKa0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJZFZFmBKa0[/video]

 

Its against the Geneva Convention...

 

we stopped following that when Bush tortured POW

 

Now watch me hit this ball...................

 

It's against the Hague Convention of 1899, not the Geneva Convention, and is illegal only in international warfare. That means fair game in counter terrorism, counter insurgency, etc. If we go to war with Russia, China, or Iran, they might be illegal, but war with them would probably result in the violation of all kinds of other rules of warfare on both sides anyway.

 

Copy that...

 

Copper would be very expensive. The French used a Bronze/Brass bullet, the Balle D in WW1 but eventually had to replace it, again one reason was expense. I haven't looked at it closely, but my understanding of it was that it was a highly penetrating bullet. You're right about the M4 and M855. The bullet was originally designed for the M16 rifle with a 20 inch barrel with longer tube producing the necessary velocities. What a lot of people don't know is that military weapons are designed to function around a single round, with things like tracer and AP a very secondary consideration if you're talking about rifles. My SHTF cartridges are 62gr jacket HP's. I don't have to worry about treaties.

 

But if 9mm ball won't penetrate, I doubt that .45 ball will either.

 

No it isn't illegal as the US never signed the Hogue document.

 

I am aware of these things, however from my understanding the M855 begins to tumble in about 8" of flesh at close range. M193 does so in less than six inches. The average human torso is some 9-11" thick, so the M855 has a reputation for causing relatively minor wounds.

- - - Updated - - -

There are the same rounds I carry in my M&P9C.

They expand quite nicely. I like the poly tips as I live in Colorado, and heavy clothing is typically in the colder months. I would hate for a projectile to fail in expanding should an attacker be wearing a heavy jacket.

 

Same rounds in all my 9MM's. XD-M Springfield eats them like candy.

 

Again, what you say about the comparison of the M855 and M193 is not true. The bullets don't tumble, they yaw and if they have adequate velocity they will fragment. However, the M193 was used in a 1:12 20 inch barrel. In a 1:7 or even a 1:9 twist barrel, they are very stable, will not yaw and deeply penetrate. The M855 or SS109 performed adequately in 20 inch barrels, however they are velocity dependent. The jacket was designed to fragment, but the inner steel penetrator was designed to go deep, through Russian body armor. The 75 and 77 gr bullets used by the SF are long and heavy for caliber and will yaw at the reduced velocities that carbines produce. These guys also use a lot of suppressors which pose special problems. It can get complicated but the big BUT how you set the parameters of what you want the bullet to do. Accuracy? Distance? Terminal performance? You can't get it all.

 

Hmmmmmmmmm what I have seen is different, do you have a video or something that demonstrates your point?

 

I can't give you a physics or engineering lesson and this is where this goes. In a bolt action rifle, the parameter are easily set. Pull the trigger and the weapon fires. What happens is determined by the type of charging power, the weight and shape of the projectile and the barrel twist. There's really a lot more, but this is the basics. For a semi-auto the rules change and for a fully auto the rules really change. You have to look into how the weapon functions. The heavier the projectile and the faster the twist the longer the bullet stay in the barrel. Herein lies the problem. With a piston system you can overpressure it which is fine, you can bleed excess gas off easily but you lose velocity and accuracy in the process. You will gain reliability. With a direct impingement system, you can't do this so easily. With auto's and semi-autos you have to make sure the weapon will function with the cartridge chosen. THEN you worry about what the projectile ( bullet ) does. Here's where you start with what the bullet will do. Now it gets complicated. You're not going to get an engineering degree on Youtube.