Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Infantry Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Dig That Groovy APLP Ammo! (?)
Nichevo    12/3/2003 12:47:31 AM
A google will bring you to the site of LeMas, Inc., purported sole maker of the APLP ammo. There is some controversy over whether they can be trusted, as strat. says, due to the performance in cool gelatin vs. warm flesh, but they make their efforts at refutation and all I can say is, that's one dead roast beef! Could this mean we can stop worrying about replacing the 5.56mm? Is this bullet legal? Hey, this could make the .22LR big!
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Heorot    RE:Dig That Groovy APLP Ammo! (?)   12/3/2003 9:26:26 AM
There is no way that this is legel. That won't stop the US from using it though.
 
Quote    Reply

macawman    Is APLP ammo legal (?)   12/3/2003 10:18:01 AM
Guerillas/irregulars are not considered 'legal combatants' by any Convention.
 
Quote    Reply

WinsettZ    RE:Is APLP ammo legal (?)   12/3/2003 6:20:54 PM
Hague Convention dealt with hollow points and stuff. We never signed the thing, so they say: so it's open season. What exactly do the conventions say about bullets? Do they mention fragmenting rounds or just "expanding rounds"?
 
Quote    Reply

Scorpene    Blended metal rounds, 5.56 and otherwise   12/8/2003 7:03:20 AM
Two companies in the United States-- RBCD of San Antonio, and Aguila Ammunition of Mexico (US importers include Centurion Ordnance in Helotes, Texas) manufacture blended metal rounds and they have them in a variety of loadings. The pistol versions are much lighter than conventional loads but have a much higher velocity, and have reportedly gotten excellent stopping power without excessive penetration. On the other hand, they are reputed to have adequate penetration for general use. Myself, I carry the 124 grain HydraShock by Federal, and have not switched to another round yet, although I am considering these. I am pretty sure that this "APLP" round is based on the same technology. This is the wave of the future, and will enhance the capabilities of and extend the useful life of many of our current rounds into the next several decades, I imagine. It is often misunderstood that expanding military bullets are "illegal". The treaty that would have kept the US from using these rounds was the Hague Accords, which the US never signed. Our 5.56 loadings in both M855 and M193 break apart and/or tumble on impact, as does the hollow base Russian M-43 cartridge (7.62x39) German 7.62 NATO, and the Russian 5.45mm cartridge, which has a hollow gap in the nose of the bullet that induces tumbling of the round. I have it from a well placed source that some versions of this round use a destabilizing pin in the nose to achieve the effect. All of the above rounds are "legal"; in the case of the M855, the round's behavior was allegedly accidental, and it had been someone's intention that the bullet would "humanely" punch in and out of a body without yaw. Humane except for whoever has to count on the thing to stop someone, that is!
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE:Blended metal rounds, 5.56 and otherwise   12/8/2003 8:07:35 AM
The Hague Accords - The Hague Accords ban the use of expanding projectiles against the military forces of other nations. Some countries accept this as a blanket ban against the use of expanding projectiles against anyone, while the U.S. feels free to use JSP and HP against terrorists and criminals. (The U.S. didn't sign the complete Hague Accords in any case, but still follows its guidelines in military conflicts.) So while most of the civilised world considers these to be illegal under international law, America ignores the convention. I wonder what would happen if a regular soldier of an enemy country sued the US in the International court. Or does the US still refuse to acknowledge that courts authority.
 
Quote    Reply

Final Historian    RE:Blended metal rounds, 5.56 and otherwise   12/8/2003 11:31:31 AM
I believe that the US doesn't recognize the ICC authority, at least to prosecute US soldiers. I don't know about political leaders though...
 
Quote    Reply

Scorpene    RE:Final Historian and Heorot   12/9/2003 1:52:57 AM
Good thing I checked by when I did. To FH, the US does not recognize the ICC's authority for either it's political or military leadership; and in this reporter's opinion should never do so, under any circumstances. It is an extraordinary thing to imagine that a world power would allow itself to be crippled through the actions of legal eagles in other countries. It will be pointed out by someone that this is hypocritical for the US to rely on bodies of nations to do things "legally" when the US finds it favorable, only to disavow them when it does not. Agreed. Hence, I have very little use for international conventions of any sort; I believe they are inherently useless. Nations conspire to use their powers to tug on each other all the time, whether those powers are military or economic, or what. Heorot-- From what you said earlier, I guess that you endorse the idea that some bullets or other weapons are humane, and others are not; I have never been able to see the difference between, for instance, a bullet that blows you apart gradually versus one that takes a big chunk out of you and kills quick. For what the US would do if someone sued them over the point, I guess the thing for us to do would be to shoot them with an APLP round. And their lawyer. Hee, hee, hee.
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE: Scorpene   12/9/2003 8:00:40 AM
Well, you guess wrong. Humanity doesn’t come into it; which is worse? Having bits blown off you by an artillery shell, or having bits blown off you by a blended metal round? One is internationally considered legal and the other not. My take on this is political as you said. America seeks international approval when it suits them and disregards it when it doesn’t. Of course, a case like this would never come to court as the US would ignore the courts demands or judgements.
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    RE:Blended metal rounds, 5.56 and otherwise   12/9/2003 10:13:31 AM
"America seeks international approval when it suits them and disregards it when it doesn’t" Um, yeah. Its called self interest. Name a country that puts their self interest on the back burner when they don't have to. Back to this ammunition, is it really likely to go into service? One of big gripes on the 5.56 round has been about it lack on penetrating power.. I'd think you would loose even more by adapting this type of round.
 
Quote    Reply

LogicalFallacy    RE:Blended metal rounds, 5.56 and otherwise   12/9/2003 12:25:37 PM
From what I've understood about these rounds, they have *more* penetrating power compared to more standard ammunition types. It tends not to deform unless striking flesh, so one would expect that it would have more penetration capacity then a round utilizing a soft metal, even with a steel penetrator. I suppose it would depend on the actual hardness of the blended alloy (Assuming its an alloy of course, and not a metalic wafer-type thing...) Link to Blackwater shootout (where they testing the ammo against 1.25 inch ceramic/G-Lam composite plate, but using a heavier round) http://www.militarycity.com/blackwater/blackwater2.html Manufacturer link: http://www.rbcd.net/
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics