Light Support Weapons & Infantry Automatic Rifles

[FJAG]

While Canada was not a signatory to the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, I expect that Frag-12 ammo still runs counter to the spirit of the Law of Armed Conflict. Even the .50 Raufoss created quite a stir, despite the fact that it was unlikely to explode within anyone unless they were wearing plates or somesuch. I doubt the Canadian government will be willing to entertain a political hot potato like that.

Canada was not a signatory of this treaty but the UK signed on 11 Dec 1868 and the treaty is considered in effect in Canada as of that date. The treaty bans, in the case of war amongst the contracting parties, the use of "projectiles of a weight below 400 grams, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflamable substances."

I have no idea as to whether or not the rounds being discussed in this thread fall within or outside this restriction, but Canada vets all ammunition used by its troops as well as the ammunition's method of use. Accordingly any ammunition issued to Canadian Forces members by the chain of command can be assumed to meet the LOAC if unaltered by users and used in the authorized manner.

Cheers

 

[KevinB]

Mk211 Raufoss does have a payload -- It is generally an anti-material round.

Mk262 Mod1 (77gr) was ruled legal for unrestricted issue, using the same logic as the other Sierra MatchKing BTHP bullets, in that the Hollow Point was part of the manufacturing process for Match Grade accuracy and not designed to expand or defore easily in tissue.  At one point this ammunition was used by the CF.  Mk262 is not a 'Hot" round per say, its a NATO pressure loading - its nothing like M855A1 ammo in terms of pressure...

The SOST ammunition natures in 5.56mm and 7.62mm where also ruled Legal for unrestricted usage - In addition to SOCOM, the USMC has also fielded the SOST ammunition.

 

[Illegio]

Canada was not a signatory of this treaty but the UK signed on 11 Dec 1868 and the treaty is considered in effect in Canada as of that date. The treaty bans, in the case of war amongst the contracting parties, the use of "projectiles of a weight below 400 grams, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflamable substances."

I have no idea as to whether or not the rounds being discussed in this thread fall within or outside this restriction, but Canada vets all ammunition used by its troops as well as the ammunition's method of use. Accordingly any ammunition issued to Canadian Forces members by the chain of command can be assumed to meet the LOAC if unaltered by users and used in the authorized manner.

Cheers

Hi,

My point was directed more towards the Frag-12 line of ammo, which is a fin-stabilized explosive round designed to be fired from any run-of-the-mill 12-gauge shotgun. We don't use it, as far as I know, and I don't see us using it because of the St. Petersburg Declaration.

As far as the Mk. 262 and the Mk. 318 go, my concern was more with the 318. They are both "open-tip match" rounds, but the 318 demonstrates some rather unique terminal ballistics.

 

[FJAG]

My point was directed more towards the Frag-12 line of ammo, which is a fin-stabilized explosive round designed to be fired from any run-of-the-mill 12-gauge shotgun. We don't use it, as far as I know, and I don't see us using it because of the St. Petersburg Declaration.

Understood.

I think you are reading the Declaration a bit too narrowly. The following is a quote from the International Red Cross's summary of the rules of international humanitarian law re exploding bullets:

"Practice since the adoption of the St. Petersburg Declaration has modified this prohibition, as exploding anti-aircraft bullets were introduced in the First World War.[5]  Furthermore, lighter grenades and exploding anti-materiel bullets have been introduced since. These developments have occurred without any objection. The military manuals or statements of several States consider only the anti-personnel use of such projectiles to be prohibited or only if they are designed to explode upon impact with the human body.[6]  Some military manuals and legislation, nevertheless, continue to refer back to the wording of the prohibition contained in the St. Petersburg Declaration, even though practice has since modified this prohibition."

You should recall that the theory of the St Petersburg Declaration is against the useage of an anti-personnel rifle round that was designed to explode on impact with a person.

We, and many other parties, use several explosive rounds that fall under 400 grams (for example the 20mm comes in around 100 grams but is used on aircraft as an anti-materiel round. Similarly, the 25 mm HEI-T comes in around 185 grams and the 40 mm HE grenade weighs approximately 230 grams) A 12 gauge shotgun generally is around 18.3 to maybe 20 mm and therefore the FRAG-12 undoubtedly comes in around 100 grams or less (I tried everywhere to find the specification weight without success) These projectiles are primarily area anti-materiel weapons or designed to burst on impact with buildings or bunkers or vehicles and cause casualties by flying fragments. Undoubtedly if a single person is hit directly by one of these rounds the effect on him would be catastrophic but the design of the round is not for that purpose.

I note that there are three types of rounds: the door buster HE variety and the AP round are both written up as anti-materiel usage and as long as they are used in that way would not be illegal. The anti-personnel version gives me more pause because it appears to distribute small ball bearings and in one write-up speaks of its effectiveness in firing into a car where it bursts inside. The original St Petersburg Dec was to ban a round that was fired at an individual and then would explode on contact causing extreme damage. The FRAG-12 Anti-pers as written seems to be a small area explosive weapon BUT I would have some concerns. In order to do the proper analysis one would have to study its method of operation and its effects. I would think that the test at the end of the day would be that if it is generally designed for and used to create multiple casualties or single casualties by indirect fragments it would be legal but if its primary usage is to hit one individual and cause unnecessary horrific damage to that one individual it would be illegal.

:cheers:

 

[KevinB]

As far as the Mk. 262 and the Mk. 318 go, my concern was more with the 318. They are both "open-tip match" rounds, but the 318 demonstrates some rather unique terminal ballistics.

Mk318 and Mk319 SOST were adopted for "Barrier Blind" ammo - in the way that intervening media was not going to unduly affect the flight of the bullet into the intended target.

From my understanding talking to Col (ret.) Hayes Parks was that the intent of the ammo for barrier blind purposes was the important aspect to approval of the adoption.  Secondly the other aspect was that the Hague Convention never considered high velocity bullets that yaw and fragment due to impact velocities.  But the HC was the reason for the fact JHP pistol ammo is not legal for unrestricted land warfare usage, but is legal for anti-terrorist or CT missions.

 

[Illegio]

Hmm... My understanding of the Mk. 318 SOST is that it fragments regardless of whether it yaws violently or not. My understanding of the Mk. 262 is that it just fragments more easily because it is a longer round with a thinner jacket.

I hope nobody takes this as undue criticism, and I'm not a lawyer by any means, but it seems like the legality of all this different ammunition boils down to how it is "intended" to be used, on paper anyway. If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, well, I wonder where this particular road leads.

 

[a_majoor]

Flip answer is it leads to dead or incapacitated targets.

From the end user perspective (i.e. me wearing my section commander hat), I require ammunition that will perform reliably both inside the weapon (without causing fouling or failures) and on impact with the target. If that turns out to be a "hot" FMJ round fired from a conventional rifle, some exotic CTA round or an explosive round (or a spear, for that matter), it is interesting from a technical perspective but the primary interest will be in instructing my troops on the proper care, charging of magazines, loading the weapon and firing the rounds quickly and accurately.

As an aside, a 400 gram projectile is about half the weight of a modern day fragmentation grenade, so translated into modern materials and fired from a modern weapon, something that met the letter of the law would be a massively effective anti personnel weapon, and probably have considerable effect against vehicles and structure as well.

 

[KevinB]

I'm pretty sure if the original signatories to the Hague Convention etc had thought we would have firebombed Dresden they would have written it into the equation too...

 

[Dissident]

I'm pretty sure if the original signatories to the Hague Convention etc had thought we would have firebombed Dresden they would have written it into the equation too...

Or flame throwers, or claymores, or phosphorous grenades, or thermobaric rounds, or...

 

[Ostrozac]

I'm pretty sure if the original signatories to the Hague Convention etc had thought we would have firebombed Dresden they would have written it into the equation too...

Or flame throwers, or claymores, or phosphorous grenades, or thermobaric rounds, or...

Fantastic points, gentlemen. The observation that our laws of armed conflict are based around the gentlemanly customs and wound ballistics science of the late 19th century is certainly a valid point. The bulk of what we know as international law tends to evolve with science and progress -- except the law of war, which as written seems locked into an ideal from the turn of the 20th century -- an ideal that probably was never achieved even at that time (ref: Breaker Morant). That we are even debating the morality of JHP pistol rounds or Mk262 rifle rounds in the age of man-portable thermobaric warheads makes little sense, when you look at the problem objectively. Shouldn't we be updating this stuff every couple of decades, like the law of the sea? Then we could all get along with the business of killing each other in a moral, but technologically up-to-date fashion.

 

[FJAG]

Fantastic points, gentlemen. The observation that our laws of armed conflict are based around the gentlemanly customs and wound ballistics science of the late 19th century is certainly a valid point. The bulk of what we know as international law tends to evolve with science and progress -- except the law of war, which as written seems locked into an ideal from the turn of the 20th century -- an ideal that probably was never achieved even at that time (ref: Breaker Morant). That we are even debating the morality of JHP pistol rounds or Mk262 rifle rounds in the age of man-portable thermobaric warheads makes little sense, when you look at the problem objectively. Shouldn't we be updating this stuff every couple of decades, like the law of the sea? Then we could all get along with the business of killing each other in a moral, but technologically up-to-date fashion.

Actually we do regularly work on this. Two of the most recent examples are the anti-personnel mine one and the one re cluster munitions. Both of these are a problem not for the damage they do to soldiers but the damage that is done to the civilian population. Mines are rarely cleared and like in Cambodia kill thousands of innocent people. Cluster munitions have a high failure rate and are frequently picked up as curiosities by young children.

The problem with these things is that you need general buy-in by a large number of countries and the negotiations can take years trying to work out an acceptable draft treaty. When countries were negotiating the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Convention starting in the late 60s, delegations didn't rent hotel rooms, they bought apartments and houses. The first Protocol didn't get passed until 1977.

The second problem is that there are often countries that will not ratify the treaties. As an example the US has so far refused to ratify Protocols I and II, the anti-pers mines convention and the cluster munitions convention. This makes for interesting legal issues on coalition operations where Brits, Germans, the French, Canadians etc have to work with the US and share facilities and artillery and air support.

For a practical example, although not ammunition related, consider the Geneva Convention requirements on the humane treatment of prisoners and not handing them over to countries that will abuse them. The issue of our transfer of Taliban to the US and Afghanistan has been a major public affairs issue for Canada for almost six years now.

One last point. The LOAC goes back well before the 18th century. There are references in the Bible for conduct in war. The Greeks and Romans also developed elements. Much of the Knight's code of chivalry from the middle ages also contributed.

 

[KevinB]

Well at least we don't make mines that resemble childrens toys...

 

[Illegio]

Technically, neither the BLU-43 nor the PFM-1 were designed to be attractive to children. Their shape is dictated by aerodynamics more than anything - not as though the Commies put Hello Kitty stickers on them.

 

[Kirkhill]

Picked up on this while looking for some other stuff:

Via The Firearms Blog

New Zealand Switches from 5.56mm to 7.62mm FN Herstal Minimi Light Machine Gun


New Zealand Defence Force is switching from the 5.56mm FN Minimi to the 7.62mm FN Minimi as their standard Light Support Weapon (LSW).

This continues the general trend across the globe of moving away from the 5.56mm round for everything but assault rifles. The latest generation 7.62mm machine guns are only slightly heavier than their 5.56mm counterparts (the 7.62mm Minimi weighs only a few pounds more than the 5.56mm version). The tradeoff is ammunition capacity. A 7.62x51mm cartridge weighs about twice as much as a 5.56x45mm cartridge, therefor a solider will only be able to carry half as much of it.

The Army said in a press release …

The NZ Defence Force procured 600 weapons from manufacturer, FN Herstal with an approximate cost of $15,000 per weapon. The total budget for the project was $16.04 million and included procuring all ancillaries, storage facilities, and simulation training measures required for a successful introduction into service.

Personnel from across the Defence Force required to train soldiers, sailors and airmen in the use of the weapon completed their own training in November 2012. The weapon will now be phased into service across the NZ Defence Force and this is expected to be completed within the first quarter of 2013.

“The delivery of 7.62mm LSW is another positive step forward for ISWRUP, which will replace or upgrade selected weapon systems, ancillary equipment and specialist munitions within the NZDF weapons fleet.

Many thanks to Whale Oil for the tip.

Meanwhile the USMC is issuing this:

The next evolution in firepower has arrived.

For 27 years the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon has served as the Corps automatic rifle standard. In December 2010 initial fielding of the M249 SAW’s replacement, the Heckler and Koch M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, was fielded and is now set for implementation throughout the Corps.

The M27 IAR is less than half the weight of the M249 and allows the automatic rifleman to carry fewer rounds because of its improved accuracy. With a lighter load to carry, enemy combatants will now face a more lethal and mobile Marine with better firepower to boot, allowing the Marine to move faster and engage his enemy in record time.

The Corps plans to purchase more than four thousand M27s – replacing nearly all the existing Squad Automatic Weapons. By the end of 2013, the Marine Corps intends to supply M27s to every infantry and light armored reconnaissance battalion in the Corps.

Any thoughts on this from the cognoscenti?

 

[GnyHwy]

If we did, but I don't think we will get a 7.62, it would probably be the top one from Colt.  There is an argument for the section marksmen task though.

For the C7 upgrade, our best odds of getting something new would be the C7A3, pictured on bottom.

http://www.coltcanada.com/products.htm

 

[Eaglelord17]

My thoughts on the IAR is that it is a replacement for a well functioning weapon that provides effective suppressive fire. By saying they need to carry less rounds as it is more accurate is pointless. They have forgotten the point of a machine gun is sustained suppressive fire not accurate fire, that is what a rifle is for. Essentially they will have two guns that provide the same roles, there M16/AR15 and this IAR which is more or less a full auto M16/AR15. I feel they are losing a important capability for there sections and this may cost people there lives in the future.
Just my  :2c:

 

[Infanteer]

Wrong.  Suppressive fire needs to be accurate fire to be effective.  Other than that, and it is just noise.

Go look up Jim Storr's articles on suppression in the RUSI Defence Journal.  There is objective data that shows your statement to be inaccurate.

 

[Eaglelord17]

But is the FN Minimi accurate enough for the job? Its combat proven and is in use by a good number of nations in the world. The IAR maybe more accurate but is it now starting to push into the rifles role.

 

[Infanteer]

The FN Minimi, if you search for Storr's articles, are the worst at providing real suppressive fire.  I believe this is because it is a machine gun employed as an automatic rifle.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Those fancy tiny rifles with bi-pods are OK. But I'd still rather have a couple of these big bullies in my section instead, especially if I had some open ground to cross:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah1r7TkjEtI

:nod: