+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: 1-shot killer, new 5.56 round

  1. #1
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Arlington, Virginia
    Posts
    10,132
    Country: United States

    1-shot killer, new 5.56 round

    1-shot killer
    This 5.56mm round has all the stopping power you need — but you can’t use it. Here’s why:

    By John G. Roos
    Special to the Times


    Ben Thomas and three colleagues were driving north out of Baghdad in an SUV on a clear mid-September morning, headed down a dirt road into a rural village, when gunmen in several surrounding buildings opened fire on them.
    In a brief but intense firefight, Thomas hit one of the attackers with a single shot from his M4 carbine at a distance he estimates was 100 to 110 yards.

    He hit the man in the buttocks, a wound that typically is not fatal. But this round appeared to kill the assailant instantly.

    “It entered his butt and completely destroyed everything in the lower left section of his stomach ... everything was torn apart,” Thomas said.

    Thomas, a security consultant with a private company contracted by the government, recorded the first known enemy kill using a new — and controversial — bullet.

    The bullet is so controversial that if Thomas, a former SEAL, had been on active duty, he would have been court-martialed for using it. The ammunition is “nonstandard” and hasn’t passed the military’s approval process.

    “The way I explain what happened to people who weren’t there is … this stuff was like hitting somebody with a miniature explosive round,” he said, even though the ammo does not have an explosive tip. “Nobody believed that this guy died from a butt shot.”

    The bullet Thomas fired was an armor-piercing, limited-penetration round manufactured by RBCD of San Antonio.

    A new process

    APLP ammo is manufactured using a so-called “blended-metal” process, said Stan Bulmer, president of sales and manufacturing for Le Mas Ltd. of Little Rock, Ark. Le Mas is the distributor of RBCD ammo.

    Various bullet types made by RBCD are designed for different effects, Bulmer said.

    The frangible APLP ammo will bore through steel and other hard targets but will not pass through a human torso, an eight-inch-thick block of artist’s clay or even several layers of drywall. Instead of passing through a body, it shatters, creating “untreatable wounds.”

    Le Mas gave Thomas a small number of APLP rounds after he contacted the company.

    After driving off their attackers, Thomas and his colleagues quickly searched the downed enemy fighter for items of intelligence value. They also took time to examine the wound.

    “There’s absolutely no comparison, whatever, none,” to other wounds he has seen from 5.56mm ammo, Thomas said in a telephone interview while on home leave in Florida.

    He said he feels qualified to assess a bullet’s effects, having trained as a special-operations medic and having shot people with various types of ammo, including the standard-issue green tip and the Black Hills Mk 262, favored by spec-ops troops.

    Thomas was the only member of the four-man group who had RBCD ammo. He said that after the group returned to base, they and other members of his group snatched up the remaining rounds.

    “They were fighting over it,” he said. “At the end of the day, each of us took five rounds. That’s all we had left.”

    Congress wants tests

    Last year’s defense budget included $1.05 million for testing blended-metal bullets, Bulmer said. Fourteen months into the 24-month period during which those research and development-testing funds must be spent, the military has not purchased a single bullet from Le Mas.

    Publicly, at least, military officials say RBCD ammo is no more effective than other types now in use and, under certain conditions, doesn’t even perform as well. Those conclusions are derived from a series of tests conducted a few years ago in which RBCD ammo’s effects were observed in ballistic gelatin, the standard means for testing bullets.

    Naval Reserve Lt. Cmdr. Gary Roberts, a recognized ballistics expert and member of the International Wound Ballistics Association, conducted the gelatin tests in March 2002.

    According to his findings, “Claims that RBCD bullet terminal performance can vary depending on target thickness, size or mass were not shown to have merit, as bullet performance remained consistent irrespective of gelatin block size.”

    Roberts found that in gelatin, a 9mm, 60-grain slug exhibited “tissue damage comparable to that of other nonexpanding 9mm bullets and is less than that of standard 9mm [jacketed hollow point] designs, since the RBCD bullet does not create as much tissue damage due to its smaller recovered diameter.”

    A .45-caliber bullet “offered average terminal performance in bare and denim-clad gelatin, similar to that noted with the 9mm bullet. ... The RBCD bullets do not appear to be a true frangible design, as significant mass is retained after striking a target.”

    Not surprisingly, Roberts’ assessment remains a major impediment to getting RBCD ammo into military hands. Considering his standing in the ballistics community, his findings are accepted as gospel by many influential members of the special-operations community.

    But Bulmer insists that tests in ballistic gelatin fail to demonstrate RBCD ammo’s actual performance because the gelatin is chilled to 36 degrees. Their bullets seem to shatter most effectively only when they strike warmer targets, such as live tissue. Bulmer said tests using live animals clearly would show its effects. Despite his appeals for such testing, and the funds set aside by Congress to conduct new tests, the military refuses.

    Bulmer said authority to spend the testing funds initially went to U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., which delegated testing responsibility to the Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, N.C.

    Queries to the command confirmed that it was aware of the testing requirement but had not decided when, or if, the tests will be conducted.

    Bill Skipper, president and CEO of the American Business Development Group, is a lobbyist representing Le Mas on Capitol Hill. “When I heard of the ballistic characteristics of this ammo, as a retired military officer, I realized it has to stay in the good guys’ hands,” he said, adding that SOCom’s reluctance to test it is “irresponsible.”

    “This is an issue of national security,” he said.

    Some supporters of RBCD ammunition suggest SOCom officials may be reluctant to test the ammo because it threatens “in-house” weapons and ammunition programs underway at the command.

    Special-operations forces long have sought a more potent standard round than the 5.56mm, which lacks the punch needed during the long-distance engagements that frequently occur in Afghanistan and Iraq. In response, SOCom is working with weapons and ammunition manufacturers to develop a new round and new upper receivers for M4 and M16 rifles.

    The command apparently has narrowed its search to a 6.8-by-43mm round.

    Indication of industries’ involvement in this effort was seen in October during the annual Association of the U.S. Army exhibition in Washington.

    If Le Mas’ 5.56mm APLP round delivers the performance SOCom is seeking in the new 6.8mm ammo — and Bulmer insists it does — the rationale and the potentially lucrative contracts for producing a new ammo type and modifying thousands of weapons used by special-operations forces would disappear.

    Thomas said he isn’t familiar with the reasons that might keep RBCD ammo from getting a realistic test within the military.

    “The politics, that’s above my pay grade,” he said. “All I really care about is that I have the best-performing weapon, optics, communications, medical equipment, etc. I’m taking Le Mas ammo with me when I return to Iraq, and I’ve already promised lots of this ammo to my buddies who were there that day and to their friends.”

    When military officials in the United States got wind that Thomas had used the round, he quickly found himself in the midst of an online debate in which an unnamed officer, who mistakenly assumed Thomas was in the service, threatened him with a court martial for using the nonstandard ammo.

    Although Thomas was impressed by RBCD ammo’s performance, he feels it should not be the standard ammunition issued to all U.S. forces.

    “The first thing I say when I talk to people about Le Mas’ ammo is, make sure that 22-year-old infantrymen don’t get a hold of this, because if they have an accident ... if they have a negligent discharge, that person is dead. It doesn’t matter how much body armor you have on.

    “This is purely for putting into bad guys. For general inventory, absolutely not. For special operations, I wouldn’t carry anything else.”

    A video clip on RBCD ammo that was shot at the annual Armed Forces Journal Shootout at Blackwater is online at www.armedforcesjournal.com/bullets.

    John G. Roos is editor of Armed Forces Journal.

    http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f...25-2426405.php

  2. #2
    Regular
    Join Date
    11 May 04
    Posts
    78
    I think this round should never be used in regular army, only special ops. I saw a special program on it (or similar round) and they showed various gelatine testing. WHen that thing enter it splits into many different fragments which assume their own trajectories. SUch a wound cannot be treated without a cmoplex surgery.
    I think this is along the same lines of poisoned bullets or even gas use in terms of ethics.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    02 May 04
    Posts
    622
    Quote Originally Posted by berkut
    I think this round should never be used in regular army, only special ops. I saw a special program on it (or similar round) and they showed various gelatine testing. WHen that thing enter it splits into many different fragments which assume their own trajectories. SUch a wound cannot be treated without a cmoplex surgery.
    I think this is along the same lines of poisoned bullets or even gas use in terms of ethics.
    Hey what do you think a bullet is supposed to do, give a malaria jab?

  4. #4
    Regular
    Join Date
    11 May 04
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by aryan
    Hey what do you think a bullet is supposed to do, give a malaria jab?
    I'm not sure what you ment by it (honestly).
    But if you are saying that there's nothing wrong with the damage it causes then I dont see anything wrong with using zarin, mustard gas, or some bio weapon
    Or (forgot what they are called) bullets that rapidly change trajectory, enters your stomach exits through the neck type, that were designed for AK and were not used for moral reasons.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    02 May 04
    Posts
    622
    Quote Originally Posted by berkut
    I'm not sure what you ment by it (honestly).
    But if you are saying that there's nothing wrong with the damage it causes then I dont see anything wrong with using zarin, mustard gas, or some bio weapon
    Or (forgot what they are called) bullets that rapidly change trajectory, enters your stomach exits through the neck type, that were designed for AK and were not used for moral reasons.
    Why would someone shooting someone in the stomach with an AK concern themselves about the moral rights of the victim?

  6. #6
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    Country: Switzerland
    This ammo is clearly banned from military use by the Geneva accords.

    However, it is perfectly legal for civilian and law enforcement personnel.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    02 May 04
    Posts
    622
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    This ammo is clearly banned from military use by the Geneva accords.
    Why?

  8. #8
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Arlington, Virginia
    Posts
    10,132
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by aryan
    Why?
    For the same reason shotguns are banned. It causes unnecessary suffering, or whatever.

  9. #9
    Regular
    Join Date
    11 May 04
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by aryan
    Why would someone shooting someone in the stomach with an AK concern themselves about the moral rights of the victim?

    THey are absolutely not concerned! The politicians are.

  10. #10
    Patron Hawk_eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 May 04
    Location
    CTA-ISLAMABAD
    Posts
    155
    i use the SPLATT Hollow-point, it has provided me with all the stopping power i have ever needed.

    Frankly considering the High-Speeds and low penetration rates of 5.56 rounds as compared to the rather slow but much more powerful 7.62 round, this 5.56 dose pack a lot of punch...

    It would make intresting testing on a PR range..

  11. #11
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    Country: Switzerland
    Shotguns are not banned under international law.

    They're still issued to some US troops today.

    The new rounds are illegal for military use because they have an expanding design.

    Expanding projectiles are specificly banned as inhumane.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Big Battleship Doctrine
    By Defcon 6 in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 307
    Last Post: 17 Apr 08,, 11:58
  2. Conflict in Iraq: The sniper who shoots on video
    By Ray in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10 Nov 06,, 12:03
  3. Man Shot by Cheney Has Heart Irregularity
    By troung in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 21 Feb 06,, 13:58
  4. Soviet guns in Afghanistan (interview)
    By troung in forum Small Arms and Personal Weapons
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 31 Aug 05,, 05:55
  5. Gates of Fire
    By Shek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 26 Aug 05,, 17:40

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts