[slow2run]

What should the military replace the 556 mm cartage and the MG 7.62 mm with ,
trying to keep replacement cost down if posable?

 

[tanman83]

miltary round

300 RUM or the 300 Win Mag

 

[264WM]

What should the military replace the 556 mm cartage and the MG 7.62 mm with ,
trying to keep replacement cost down if posable?

It would seem that the 338 Federal would be a good choice as it is based on the 308 so the action length would be similar and the ballistics are better with more energy at 500 yrds with recoil being light and DPMS already has the panther in 338 Federal with a 18" fluted barrel.

 

[OneShotKill]

What should the military replace the 556 mm cartage and the MG 7.62 mm with ,
trying to keep replacement cost down if posable?

Is this something that the U.S forces are considering? Are other allies also thinking about changing from the 5.56mm?

Just found this link below, and it's says what I have heard from returned Aussie troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't know anything about the 7mmEM, but I'm going to look into it. Could it be a good compromise between the 5.56mm and 7.62? The 6.8 mm Remington SPC and 6.5mm Grendel also get a mention as well.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/btbjdw.pdf

 

[RaySendero]

Each unit should have some carrying 458 SOCOMs and 300 WMs rifles!

 

[Bird Dog II]

As a military officer who has been downrange in Afghanistan, I have studied this a lot. And the military has studied it too. Too bad cost is more important than giving our fighters the best option available, or it would have already been done. You can read about the 6.8 SPC on the net to see about as far as the research got. That round, while a slight improvement over the 5.56mm, still just does not develop the muzzle velocity and energy needed to optimize performance in our short barreled carbine assault rifles. Because we are limited to non-expanding bullets, both the 5.56 and 6.8 can leave a lot of fight potentially in a motivated enemy. Plus, many engagements are possible beyond 300 meters in the places we currently fight. These weapons are of little use at 300 plus. The 6.8 SPC was chosen because its profile would fit into the current receiver of the M-16. In other words, to save cost. Again, what is best for our troops was not really considered.

Along with knock down power and trajectory, the following are important for military applications. 1. How many rounds you can carry. 2. Recoil

Before I go any further, let me say we already have the perfect round available. It is the 7.62 NATO (.308). Shooting wise, it does it all. Recoil is managable. It is true fewer rounds can be carried for the same weight. But every grunt I know would rather be lugging around 3 or 4 extra pounds of 7.62 if they had the choice.

The 7.62 would give us unit commonality with the squad machine gun that is needed, a light version of the M240B (today's M60 MG). Let me tell you from experience, the 5.56 SAW is about useless if going up against a PK machine gun (which shoots the Russian equivalent of a .30-06 - the 7.62 Russian). The PK is the standard in the world. You can literally poor sandy dust in that thing and will keep on thumping away. I know, the Afghans I trained did it to prove their point when I doubted them after being told. And it shoots HARD. Our 5.56 SAW sucks in comparison all the way around. It's pitter patter down range effect compared to the dominant effect of a PK or M-60/240B is just sad.

The 7.62 NATO is a proven long range round. And long range off-center hits from a .308 have the ability to tear off an arm/leg rather than the recoverable wound the 5.56 (and the 115 gr 6.8 I suspect) can dish out.


Recoil is the other knock the .308 gets, although it doesn't kick hard to me in a well balanced gun. We should simply do more marksmanship training to compensate. Again, that costs money. Of course we throw 10 billion a week at the problems in Afghanistan and Iraq, you'd think we could alot another 500 rounds per soilders in basic training. Just my opinion....I am just a dumb Major, so it doesn't carry much weight. But it all boils down to costs. Yes we have not designed and fielded a new service rifle in 40 years and yes we need one. Yes the one we need would require that we train our people a little longer and with new standards. But it all costs. We will continue to give the Iraqi and Afghan governments billions in aid every month, but we wont spend the 500 million or so this re-fit would take. I am afraid that is the sad truth. Whether it makes sense or not is immaterial in our current world.

 

[Arctic_Eddie]

There was a cartridge developed by the military many years ago called the 276 Pederson. It was designed by computational methods based on real data and not just something necked up or down like a wildcat. It was supposed to be the best choice using all the requirements of which you speak. RCBS may still have dies for this cartridge. The closest thing to it would be the 30 Remington necked down to 0.277(oops 0.284). Today, the closest thing is likely the 7mm-08 or another based on the 308 case.

I quite agree with your position. If we're going to get into a war then we should do it to win. If we're going to win then we need the best tools.

 

[TMan]

Recoil is the other knock the .308 gets, although it doesn't kick hard to me in a well balanced gun.

The .308 and .30-06 are quite similar for recoil in a M1A or Garand. Neither is really a "kicker" in rifles of that type.

I would think a couple M14's per squad would an inexpensive option. ?

 

[RifleFan]

Right on Bird Dog. The fact the 7.62 isn't our every day cartridge is just mind boggling.

 

[2Bits]

I will agrue this point with St. Peter! The calbier that our military now has in it's hands is NOT the round they should be using on the battlefield period. My pick for such work is the .308 Winchester and it is 5-lbs lighter in recoil than the Old War Horse, the 30-06.

I thought our military did a good thing for the combat soldier when it dropped the 30-06 caliber! Yes, I did say that in fact. I remember young troops with purple brusing on their shoulders from that steel butt plate on the M1-Garand rifle. I too suffered those very same brusies and shot 3rd highest in my Battalion in the early 60's.

The .308 Winchester took just enough off the recoil to really help those young troops on the rifle range and please don't anyone try to tell me different........I was there!!! Now ever since the early days of Viet Nam, I have cussed that little bullet the military adopted as our military rifle caliber for the foot soldier...............IT IS A VARMINT CALIBER!!!

The .300 Win mag is a great long range caliber but very very few would be able to shoot this in a rifle and be spot on target..........it takes a very experienced shooter to handle it's 30 plus pounds of recoil to the rifleman's shoulder. It took me 2 years to master the recoil problem and I also used a basketball knee pad in those days to help things out.

CONGRESS and the military need to get their heads out fof their rearends and go back to what worked on the battlefield..............308 Winchester in the M-14.

I once was told and read somewhere back in the late 60's, that the 5.56 would let the soldier carry much more ammo! I never heard any other Veteran ever complain about carrying his 30-06 ammo of the .308 Winchester caliber ammo while on the battlefield. This to me was a pure cop-out simply put, the American soldier is NO WUSSY folks, he is trained and strong enough to and from the battlefield with his weapon and ammo in the past. We need the .308 caliber back in the hands of our infantrymen in battle!!!

 

[OneShotKill]

Thanks Tracer and Bird Dog II for your valuable and appreciated insights. Politicians should be sent to the front line with the equipment they expect troops to use, and if they survive, they should return home with their heads hung in shame, with the determination to return home to equip the troops properly.

I'm not a soldier and have never served in the military, but I would rather carry some extra weight and use 7.62 rounds and know I have a rifle that's going to knock someone over hard if hit properly, than die wishing a politician had thought my life was only worth giving me a 5.56mm suitable for shooting varmints.

To all those who serve to protect us the values we treasure, THANKYOU!

 

[MikeG]

Thanks, Major, for getting some perspective from the field.

 

[OneShotKill]

What's everyone's thoughts on something like a 7mm08 as a future military round. I'm thinking along the lines of possibly slightly less recoil, but more punch than a 5.56mm round. Would it be suitable given what Bird Dog II and Tracer have said?

 

[hailstone]

Tracer and Bird Dog II both speak from experience. I also served during those troubling times in the sixties and early seventies. Combat doctrine is forever changing which demands different tools. Only time we were ahead of the curve was when the M1 Garand was adapted in late thirties. WWII might have ended differently had we had 03 Springfields. Definately would have been higher causalties for the USA.

Unfortunately we give that up some where alone the line. Politics, world events, economics, fewer John Browning type individuals have all accelerated the decline. If every member of congress spent one tour in a combat zone there attitudes would be different. Funny have bullets zingging around tends to focus you on whats important. Former generations of congressmen were veterans but that doesn't apply today. Personally forsee the day when few members of congress will be veterans.

Would think enough M14's are in storage for re-issue. When I was stationed overseas in the early seventies the naval arms room on base had all kinds of older service weapons -- Thompsons, BAR's, Brownings, M1 Garands. When navy personel need training with M16's they came to me because we were the only unit that had them. Suppose they could have been surplus out, lend-leased out or plain destroyed.

 

[slow2run]

As a military officer who has been downrange in Afghanistan, I have studied this a lot. And the military has studied it too. Too bad cost is more important than giving our fighters the best option available, or it would have already been done. You can read about the 6.8 SPC on the net to see about as far as the research got. That round, while a slight improvement over the 5.56mm, still just does not develop the muzzle velocity and energy needed to optimize performance in our short barreled carbine assault rifles. Because we are limited to non-expanding bullets, both the 5.56 and 6.8 can leave a lot of fight potentially in a motivated enemy. Plus, many engagements are possible beyond 300 meters in the places we currently fight. These weapons are of little use at 300 plus. The 6.8 SPC was chosen because its profile would fit into the current receiver of the M-16. In other words, to save cost. Again, what is best for our troops was not really considered.

Along with knock down power and trajectory, the following are important for military applications. 1. How many rounds you can carry. 2. Recoil

Before I go any further, let me say we already have the perfect round available. It is the 7.62 NATO (.308). Shooting wise, it does it all. Recoil is managable. It is true fewer rounds can be carried for the same weight. But every grunt I know would rather be lugging around 3 or 4 extra pounds of 7.62 if they had the choice.

The 7.62 would give us unit commonality with the squad machine gun that is needed, a light version of the M240B (today's M60 MG). Let me tell you from experience, the 5.56 SAW is about useless if going up against a PK machine gun (which shoots the Russian equivalent of a .30-06 - the 7.62 Russian). The PK is the standard in the world. You can literally poor sandy dust in that thing and will keep on thumping away. I know, the Afghans I trained did it to prove their point when I doubted them after being told. And it shoots HARD. Our 5.56 SAW sucks in comparison all the way around. It's pitter patter down range effect compared to the dominant effect of a PK or M-60/240B is just sad.

The 7.62 NATO is a proven long range round. And long range off-center hits from a .308 have the ability to tear off an arm/leg rather than the recoverable wound the 5.56 (and the 115 gr 6.8 I suspect) can dish out.


Recoil is the other knock the .308 gets, although it doesn't kick hard to me in a well balanced gun. We should simply do more marksmanship training to compensate. Again, that costs money. Of course we throw 10 billion a week at the problems in Afghanistan and Iraq, you'd think we could alot another 500 rounds per soilders in basic training. Just my opinion....I am just a dumb Major, so it doesn't carry much weight. But it all boils down to costs. Yes we have not designed and fielded a new service rifle in 40 years and yes we need one. Yes the one we need would require that we train our people a little longer and with new standards. But it all costs. We will continue to give the Iraqi and Afghan governments billions in aid every month, but we wont spend the 500 million or so this re-fit would take. I am afraid that is the sad truth. Whether it makes sense or not is immaterial in our current world.

Its time to call or e-mail our Congress person !

 

[Tnhunter]

The .308 makes a fine cartridge and excellent sniper round to 800 or so yards, about where it becomes sub-sonic (unstable). Yes, I know of confirmed kills at longer ranges, but they are also over the claimed MPBR for the M-40 and similar weapons. I'd say that the .260 or .243 shooting aerodynamic bullets of 120 & 100 grns, respectively would be fine upgrades from the present 5.56 of today's platform for typical ground troops. The .260 and .243, loaded properly are very effective to over 500 yds and carry much more steam to any target at any distance than today's platforms. I feel either a better choice than the 6.8 SPC. I see no reason to have spent millions on R&D for a new cartridge when tried and true cartridges were already present AND proven. Imagine how much might be saved using brass from the same family of cartridges for 90% of all ammo needed. Of course the ammunition sales companies might not agree, but that's not the point here, is it.

 

[Davers]

My vote is for the 6.8 mm Remington SPC.

 

[OKIE]

Killing ********

Why Not Forget The Rules Of War And Use Hollow Points
Then There Is No Cost At All And Then You Would Have A Weapon That Would Get The Job Done.
If Washington Only Gives You A Varmit Rifle Then Shoot Varmit Bullets.
6.5 Or 7mm Is A Good Choice Too

 

[jwp475]

Why Not Forget The Rules Of War And Use Hollow Points
Then There Is No Cost At All And Then You Would Have A Weapon That Would Get The Job Done.
If Washington Only Gives You A Varmit Rifle Then Shoot Varmit Bullets.
6.5 Or 7mm Is A Good Choice Too

Most all FMJ fragment and are designed to do so. The Millitaqry does indeed use "Open Tip Bullets" . The Marines recently purchased 2 million rounds to issue to thier troops

 

[jwp475]

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/01/army_jag_bans_e.html

MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, UNITED STATES ARMY SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O></O>
SUBJECT: Sniper Use of Open-Tip Ammunition<O></O>

DATE: <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 /><ST1ATE month="9" day="23" year="1985">23 September 1985
</ST1ATE><O></O>

1. Summary.
   
   This memorandum considers whether United States Army Snipers may employ match-grade, "open-tip" ammunition in combat or other special missions. It concludes that such ammunition does not violate the law of war obligations of the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION><ST1LACE>United States
   </ST1LACE></ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>, and may be employed in peacetime or wartime missions of the Army. <O></O>
2. Background.
   
   Sierra MatchKing 168-grain match grade boat tail For more than a decade two bullets have been available for use by the United States Army Marksmanship Unit in match competition in its 7.62mm rifles. The M118 is a 173-grain match grade full metal jacket boat tail, ogival spitzer tip bullet, while the M852 is the Sierra MatchKing 168-grain match grade boat tail, ogival spitzer tip bullet with an open tip. Although the accuracy of the M118 has been reasonably good, though at times erratic, independent bullet comparisons by the Army, Marine Corps, and National Guard marksmanship training units have established unequivocally the superior accuracy of the M852. Army tests noted a 36% improvement in accuracy with the M852 at 300 meters, and a 32% improvement at 600 yds; Marine Corps figures were twenty-eight percent accuracy improvement at 300 m, and 20% at 600yds. The National Guard determined that the M852 provided better bullet groups at 200 and 600 yards under all conditions than did the M118. [FNa1]
   
   The 168-grain MatchKing was designed in the late 1950's for 300 m. shooting in international rifle matches. In its competitive debut, it was used by the 1st place winner at the 1959 Pan American Games. In the same caliber but in its various bullet lengths, the MatchKing has set a number of international records. To a range of 600 m., the superiority of the accuracy of the M852 cannot be matched, and led to the decision by <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION><ST1LACE>U.S.
   </ST1LACE></ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>military marksmanship training units to use the M852 in competition.
   
   A 1980 opinion of this office concluded that use of the M852 in match competition would not violate law of war obligations of the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION><ST1LACE>United States
   </ST1LACE></ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>. (citation omitted) Further tests and actual competition over the past decade have confirmed the superiority of the M852 over the M118 and other match grade bullets. For example, at the national matches held at <ST1LACE><ST1:CITY>Camp Perry
   </ST1:CITY>,
   <ST1:STATE>OH
   </ST1:STATE></ST1LACE>in 1983, a new <ST1LACE>Wimbledon
   </ST1LACE>record of 2--015 X's was set using the 168-gr. MatchKing. This level of performance lead to the question of whether the M852 could be used by military snipers in peacetime or wartime missions of the Army.
   
   During the period in which this review was conducted, the 180-gr. MatchKing (for which there is no military designation) also was tested with a view to increased accuracy over the M852 at very long ranges. Because two bullet weights were under consideration, the term "MatchKing" will be used hereinafter to refer to the generic design rather than to a bullet of a particular weight. The fundamental question to be addressed by this review is whether an open-tip bullet of MatchKing design may be used in combat. <O></O>
3. Legal Factors.
   
   The principal provision relating to the legality of weapons is contained in Art. 23e of the Annex to Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of <ST1ATE month="10" day="18" year="1907">18 October 1907
   </ST1ATE>, which prohibits the employment of "arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury." In some law of war treatises, the term "unnecessary suffering" is used rather than "superfluous injury." The terms are regarded as synonymous. To emphasize this, Art. 35, para. 2 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of <ST1ATE month="8" day="12" year="1949">August 12, 1949
   </ST1ATE>, states in part that "It is prohibited to employ weapons [and] projectiles . . . of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering." Although the U.S. has made the formal decision that for military, political, and humanitarian reasons it will not become a party to Protocol I, U.S. officials have taken the position that the language of Art. 35(2) of Protocol I as quoted is a codification of customary international law, and therefore binding upon all nations. The terms "unnecessary suffering" and "superfluous injury" have not been formally defined within international law. In determining whether a weapon or projectile causes unnecessary suffering, a balancing test is applied between the force dictated by military necessity to achieve a legitimate objective vis-à-vis suffering that may be considered superfluous to achievement of that intended objective. The test is not easily applied. For this reason, the degree of "superfluous" injury must be clearly disproportionate to the intended objectives for development and employment of the weapon, that is, it must outweigh substantially the military necessity for the weapon system or projectile. The fact that a weapon causes suffering does not lead to the conclusion that the weapon causes unnecessary suffering, or is illegal per se. Military necessity dictates that weapons of war lead to death, injury, and destruction; the act of combatants killing or wounding enemy combatants in combat is a legitimate act under the law of war. In this regard, there is an incongruity in the law of war in that while it is legally permissible to kill an enemy combatant, incapacitation must not result inevitably in unnecessary suffering. What is prohibited is the design (or modification) and employment of a weapon for the purpose of increasing or causing suffering beyond that required by military necessity. In conducting the balancing test necessary to determine a weapon's legality, the effects of a weapon cannot be viewed in isolation. They must be examined against comparable weapons in use on the modern battlefield, and the military necessity for the weapon or projectile under consideration. In addition to the basic prohibition on unnecessary suffering contained in Art. 23e of the 1907 Hague IV, one other treaty is germane to this review. The Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets of <ST1ATE month="7" day="29" year="1899">29 July 1899
   </ST1ATE>prohibits the use in international armed conflict:<O></O>

". . . 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."<O></O>

The <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION><ST1LACE>U.S.
</ST1LACE></ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>is not a party to this treaty, but <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION><ST1LACE>
U.S.
</ST1LACE></ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>officials over the years have taken the position that the armed forces of the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION><ST1LACE>
U.S.
</ST1LACE></ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>will adhere to its terms to the extent that its application is consistent with the object and purpose of Art. 23e of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, quoted above.

It is within the context of these two treaties that questions regarding the legality of the employment of the MatchKing "open tip" bullet must be considered. <O></O>

1. Bullet Description.
   
   As previously described, the MatchKing is a boat tail, ogival spitzer tip bullet with open tip. The "open tip" is a shallow aperture (approximately the diameter of the wire in a standard size straight pin or paper clip) in the nose of the bullet. While sometimes described as a "hollow point," this is a mischaracterization in law of war terms. Generally a "hollow point" bullet is thought of in terms of its ability to expand on impact with soft tissue. Physical examination of the MatchKing "open tip" bullet reveals that its opening is extremely small in comparison to the aperture in comparable hollow point hunting bullets; for example, the 165-grain GameKing is a true hollow point boat tail bullet with an aperture substantially greater than the MatchKing, and skiving (serrations cut into the jacket) to insure expansion. In the MatchKing, the open tip is closed as much as possible to provide better aerodynamics, and contains no skiving. The lead core of the MatchKing bullet is entirely covered by the bullet jacket. While the GameKing bullet is designed to bring the ballistic advantages of a match bullet to long range hunting, the manufacturer expressly recommends against the use of the MatchKing for hunting game of any size because it does not have the expansion characteristics of a hunting bullet.
   
   The purpose of the small, shallow aperture in the MatchKing is to provide a bullet design offering maximum accuracy at very long ranges, rolling the jacket of the bullet around its core from base to tip; standard military bullets and other match bullets roll the jacket around its core from tip to base, leaving an exposed lead core at its base. Design purpose of the MatchKing was not to produce a bullet that would expand or flatten easily on impact with the human body, or otherwise cause wounds greater than those caused by standard military small arms ammunition. <O></O>
2. MatchKing performance.
   
   Other than its superior long range marksmanship capabilities, the MatchKing was examined with regard to its performance on impact with the human body or in artificial material that approximates human soft tissue. It was determined that the bullet will break up or fragment in some cases at some point following entry into soft tissue. Whether fragmentation occurs will depend upon a myriad of variables, to include range to the target, velocity at the time of impact, degree of yaw of the bullet at the point of impact, or the distance traveled point-first within the body before yaw is induced. The MatchKing has not been designed to yaw intentionally or to break up on impact. These characteristics are common to all military rifle bullets. There was little discernible difference in bullet fragmentation between the MatchKing and other military small arms bullets, with some military ball ammunition of foreign manufacture tending to fragment sooner in human tissue or to a greater degree, resulting in wounds that would be more severe than those caused by the MatchKing. [FNaaa1]
   
   Because of concern over the potential mischaracterization of the M852 as a "hollow point" bullet that might violate the purpose and intent of the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets, some M852 MatchKing bullets were modified to close the aperture. The "closed tip" MatchKing did not measure up to the accuracy of the "open tip" MatchKing.
   
   Other match grade bullets were tested. While some could approach the accuracy standards of the MatchKing in some lots, quality control was uneven, leading to erratic results. No other match grade bullet consistently could meet the accuracy of the open-tip bullet. <O></O>
3. Law of War Application.
   
   From both a legal and medical standpoint, the lethality or incapacitation effects of a particular small-caliber projectile must be measured against comparable projectiles in service. In the military small arms field, "small caliber" generally includes all rifle projectiles up to and including .60 caliber (15mm). For the purposes of this review, however, comparison will be limited to small-caliber ammunition in the range of 5.45mm to 7.62mm, that is, that currently in use in assault or sniper rifles by the military services of most nations.
   
   Wound ballistic research over the past fifteen years has determined that the prohibition contained in the 1899 Hague Declaration is of minimal to no value, inasmuch as virtually all jacketed military bullets employed since 1899 with pointed ogival spitzer tip shape have a tendency to fragment on impact with soft tissue, harder organs, bone or the clothing and/or equipment worn by the individual soldier.
   
   The pointed ogival spitzer tip, shared by all modern military bullets, reflects the balancing by nations of the criteria of military necessity and unnecessary suffering: its streamlined shape decreases air drag, allowing the bullet to retain velocity better for improved long-range performance; a modern military 7.62mm bullet will lose only about one-third of its muzzle velocity over 500 yards, while the same weight bullet with a round-nose shape will lose more than one-half of its velocity over the same distance. Yet the pointed ogival spitzer tip shape also leads to greater bullet breakup, and potentially greater injury to the soldier by such a bullet vis-à-vis a round-nose full-metal jacketed bullet. (See Dr. M. L. Fackler, "Wounding Patterns for Military Rifle Bullets," International Defense Review, January 1989, pp. 56-64, at 63.)
   
   Weighing the increased performance of the pointed ogival spitzer tip bullet against the increased injury its breakup may bring, the nations of the world-- through almost a century of practice--have concluded that the need for the former outweighs concern for the latter, and does not result in unnecessary suffering as prohibited by the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets or article 23e of the 1907 Hague Convention IV. The 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets remains valid for _expression of the principle that a nation may not employ a bullet that expands easily on impact for the purpose of unnecessarily aggravating the wound inflicted upon an enemy soldier. Such a bullet also would be prohibited by article 23e of the 1907 Hague IV, however. Another concept fundamental to the law of war is the principle of discrimination, that is, utilization of means or methods that distinguish to the extent possible legitimate targets, such as enemy soldiers, from noncombatants, whether enemy wounded and sick, medical personnel, or innocent civilians. The highly trained military sniper with his special rifle and match grade ammunition epitomizes the principle of discrimination. In combat, most targets are covered or obscured, move unpredictably, and as a consequence are exposed to hostile fire for limited periods of time. When coupled with the level of marksmanship training provided the average soldier and the stress of combat, a soldier's aiming errors are large and hit probability is correspondingly low. While the M16A2 rifle currently used by the United States Army and Marine Corps is capable of acceptable accuracy out to six hundred meters, the probability of an average soldier hitting an enemy soldier at three hundred meters is ten percent.
   
   Statistics from past wars suggest that this probability figure may be optimistic. In Would War II, the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION><ST1LACE>United States
   </ST1LACE></ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>and its allies expended 25,000 rounds of ammunition to kill a single enemy soldier. In the Korean War, the ammunition expenditure had increased four-fold to 100,000 rounds per soldier; in the Vietnam War, that figure had doubled to 200,000 rounds of ammunition for the death of a single enemy soldier. The risk to noncombatants is apparent.
   
   In contrast, United States Army and Marine Corps snipers in the Vietnam War expended 1.3 rounds of ammunition for each claimed and verified kill, at an average range of six hundred yards, or almost twice the three hundred meters cited above for combat engagements by the average soldier. Some verified kills were at ranges in excess of 1000 yards. This represents discrimination and military efficiency of the highest order, as well as minimization of risk to noncombatants. Utilization of a bullet that increases accuracy, such as the MatchKing, would further diminish the risk to noncombatants. <O></O>
4. Conclusion.
   
   The purpose of the 7.62mm "open-tip" MatchKing bullet is to provide maximum accuracy at very long range. Like most 5.56mm and 7.62mm military ball bullets, it may fragment upon striking its target, although the probability of its fragmentation is not as great as some military ball bullets currently in use by some nations. Bullet fragmentation is not a design characteristic, however, nor a purpose for use of the MatchKing by United State Army snipers. Wounds caused by MatchKing ammunition are similar to those caused by a fully jacketed military ball bullet, which is legal under the law of war, when compared at the same ranges and under the same conditions. The military necessity for its use-- its ability to offer maximum accuracy at very long ranges--is complemented by the high degree of discriminate fire it offers in the hands of a trained sniper. It not only meets, but exceeds, the law of war obligations of the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION><ST1LACE>United States
   </ST1LACE></ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>for use in combat.<O></O>

This opinion has been coordinated with the Department of State, Army General Counsel, and the Offices of the Judge Advocates General of the Navy and Air Force, who concur with its contents and conclusions.

An opinion that reaches the same conclusion has been issued simultaneously for the Navy and Marine Corps by The Judge Advocate General of the Navy.<O></O>

Authored by W. <ST1LACE><ST1LACENAME>Hays
</ST1LACENAME>
<ST1LACETYPE>Parks
</ST1LACETYPE></ST1LACE>, Colonel, USMC,
Chief of the JAG's International Law Branch