ammunition question military/LE

shaldag

shaldag

Joined
Jun 17, 2004
Messages
8,436
Has anyone had experience with a handgun round called .224 Boz?

It's basically a 5.56 bullet milled onto a 10mm high-pressure handgun case.

It was developed in Britain for military/LE.

Any of y'all had any personal experience or know of anything besides the usual google results?
 
Not meaning to somewhat hijack your thread, but there's a place in the Philippines called Danao that manufactured (not sure if they continue to do so) a wheelgun that was chambered for a full-length 5.56 NATO (.223 Winchester) round. Local communist rebels would use this weapon for their assassinations.
 
Well, it was massively overbore and not very practical for most people. Can it be done? Sure, but who really cares?

These days, wouldn't an FN 5.7 be better and cheaper?
 
"milled into" doesn't make sense. There are a huge number of 'wildcat' cartridges and some become standard ones but most have very little value.BTW the Brits had an interesting flechette 223 round tested in desert storm.
 
I remember one of the gun magazines, some years back, wanted to experiment with ultra-high velocity. They built a rifle around a bizzare hybrid consisting of some huge magnum case (375 Mag or somesuch) necked down to .22.

For a projectile, they used sintered-iron "gallery" bullets intended for use in shooting galleries. (They shatter on impact with anything hard.) This little pill only weighed in at a bit more than a pellet, some 20 grains as I recall.

The result was to push muzzle velocities to near 5000 fps. ( I don't remember the exact figure) After only 50 rounds or so, the barrell started to show signs of wear from the iron projectile and the massive powder charge. Pressures were within normally-acceptable limits; they didn't experience any case sticking or primer-pocket enlargement.
Point being, anyone can put nearly anything together, but there's no free lunches.
 
http://www.civil-defence.org/products/ballistics/boz224/boz224.html

"CIVIL DEFENCE SUPPLY G-224

The CDS is an ENGLISH company, which invented the 224-BOZ ammunition A high-penetration round comprised of a 10mm-Auto case which is "Necked Down" in order to accept a 5.56-NATO bullet.

The G-224 is a customized Glock 20, featuring an older-production frame AND a stroboscopic compensated barrel in order to reduce recoil. It has been modified in order to accept and fire the 224-BOZ cartridge, feeding from a 12-rounds magazine. At present time, Civil Defense Supply has suspended the 224-BOZ customizing on the older GLOCK 20 models due to technical reasons: looks like the elder Glock 20s are subject to faster deterioration, when firing the 224-BOZ, although the newer production (3rd generation) line seems to no longer have this bug."

glock20.jpg


"The newly emergent Fabrique National FN P-90 5.7mm programme was the first attempt to create a new ammunition for compact high velocity Personal defence Weapon (PDW). When FN introduced the 5.7mm pistol using their SS-190 ammunition, considerable interest resulted, however, there are concerns that in a pistol the ammunition's performance is inadequate with poor penetration and ballistically unstable due to it's low mass projectile of only 30g.

Thus, it can clearly be seen that all truly successful weapon families have been pistol/SMG and pistol/rifle. This is mainly because their ammunitions have never had the power and range to make the transition up to rifle from pistol.

Civil Defence Supply commenced research on a Special Forces project to establish if it was possible to create a hybrid ammunition more suied to pistol/rifle offering very high velocities with adequate terminal ballistics to defeat potential threats. The result was .224 BOZ which performs well in any type of weapon from pistol, to SMG, carbine and right up to light assault rifle.

Irrespective of the novelty of creating an enhanced family of weapons, .224 BOZ is further unique in it's theory of target incapacitation. Traditional pistol/SMG's incapacitation relies on a large calibre projectile wounding by high momentum impact. .224 BOZ projectiles embrace the combat rifle theories of small calibre high velocity wounding with high kinetic energy to produce incapacitation. This is an entirely different approach to anything previous and allows this new ammunition to be used in a wide range of possible weapon types without loss of performance.

The final advantage of .224 BOZ is the compact dimensions of the ammunition when compared to existing types, and yet the concept has power and terminal effects far in excess of anything previous."

boz01.gif


maximus otter
 
i just thought of something when i read that post
isn't the bullet stabilised by the grooves in the barrel? which makes it spin and go straight?
if you're using a smaller bullet, what's making it fly true? when it's being fired from a barrel which is bigger than the projectile?

puzzled
 
There's some confusion here ... the Glock barrel is replaced with a new barrel that fits the bullet.
 
What kind of ballistics do we see from this round from the modified Glock?

A few years back, Jeff Cooper speculated that a gas-operated locked-breech pistol firing a projectile at 2000 fps or so would "revolutionize" combat handgun performance. In this case, it appears that high velocity is being obtained by using very light bullets, which does not bode very well for retained energy at any range.
 
I was recently speaking to a local gun dealer who was also a vet. The subject of efficacy with regards to modern U.S. combat small arms weaponry came up. According to this fellow, who claims to still have contacts with those in the "front lines" in Iraq, the 5.56 used in M-16s and M-4s are dangerously inefficient man stoppers. He claimed that it frequently would take several hits (unless a head shot was involved) to drop a "target". I mentioned that it seemed to be quite deadly in the case of the Washington DC sniper. He said that was because they were using hollow points and that the Geneva Convention outlawed HPs.

He also said that the 9mms were highly suspect with regard to "stopping power". Again, for the aforementioned ban on HPs.

Bottom line, he said the infantry longed for the days when 7.62s and .45s were the mainstays.

I have not seen anything in print supporting his contentions, but I doubt soldiers would want to be quoted as saying the weaponry supplied is inefficient.

Any thoughts?
 
Rick in KY said:
He said that was because they were using hollow points and that the Geneva Convention outlawed HPs.
Click to expand...

"Most people believe that by the Geneva Convention agreements, the U.S. military is prohibited from using expanding, exploding or unusually destructive projectiles in combat. The facts are otherwise: The projectile prohibition language is contained in the "Hague Accords" of the early 1900s, to which the United States was never a signatory, but by which we had agreed to abide in principle."

http://www.sftt.org/dwa/2002/12/4/9.html

As far back as the Falklands War in 1982, I can remember hearing tales of the lack of stopping power of the .223/5.56mm round. In the Falklands, several British elite units used the M16, including the SAS, the SBS and the Royal Marines Mountain Arctic Warfare Cadre.

The latter unit launched an attack at Argentinian positions at Top Malo House. I recall the comments of an MAW trooper who fired a burst of .223 into an enemy at halitosis range, only to see the bullets break up on the unfortunate Argie's knuckle bones!

As an aside, it is illegal to stalk deer in England with anything less than a rifle of .240 calibre firing an expanding bullet!

maximus otter
 
It is also illegal to hunt deer with a .223 in the USA in most places. Some places might allow it, but not most. The reason is it can not dependably kill deer. If it can't dependably kill deer, then I think it to be a poor choice to kill men with. This is how I have seen it explained numerous times. The military switched to it because it requires less training to shoot with accurately. Less recoil means less flinch. Also a soldier saves a lot of weight in both ammunition and weapon. A rifle in .223 is a couple pounds less than one in .30. The man can carry more ammo too, for the same weight. If a soldier has more ammo and can use it to place his shots more accurately, then stopping power is not as relevant. Accurate placement and number of avaliable shots is the key. These arguments also apply to the 9mm debate. I disagree and so do others, but this is a hot issue.
 
Thanks for your replies.

geothorn, I read the 1st link. Amazing.

I remember that during the DC sniper situation, in which the sniper(s) used a Bushmaster which employed the .223 (5.56mm) round. The local paper carried a story which illustrated why, even with such a small caliber bullet, that it was such a devastating round. The illustration was one which showed a human torso with a drawing of the bullet's path. The path of the bullet made a small primary wound channel, but the velocity of the round made a shock wave-generated secondary wound channel of several times the primary's diameter. It was impressive. Was it an exaggeration? After all, I don't recall any of the victims surviving.

If the "mouse gun" round is so ineffective a round, why is it so heavily adopted? I understand it is lighter to lug, but a .22 lr is even lighter...

I assume the answer lies with the "Follow the Money" principle. There is already such an investment in the round and its rifle, an overhaul would be exorbitant. Still...
 
One that I remember that survived was a 13-year-old boy, who had been driven to school by his aunt. She was able to transport him to a hospital's ER within minutes after he was shot, and that's probably the biggest reason that he survived. Another reason is because the boy was shot in the chest, rather than being shot in the head.

GeoThorn
 
A lot of the tissue damage caused by military FMJ rounds is a function of velocity at impact. If the round is still moving at higher velocities, then you get the "hydrostatic shock" effect, which can cause massive tissue wounds even with non-expanding bullets.
However, with light bullets like the typical 5.56mm, velocity is lost rapidly as range increases. In military situations, the enemy might well have some degree of body armor, equipment, helmet, etc. to penetrate.

The older "full power" 30-caliber range military rounds would reliably punch largish holes even at extreme ranges, due to better retained energy.

I remember a gruesome film we were shown in medic training (circa 1964) called "massive tissue wounds". One poor fellow had been struck at right angles to the hip by a Japanese sniper, and the (relatively) high-velocity 6.5mm round had exited the bottom of the foot, traversing the entire leg and causing extreme damage. Amputation was necessary.
 
I'm not sure if this is contained in the typical "Google results", but IIRC, this round was originally developed to give operators the ability to defeat high quality body armor at close range with a relatively low recoiling semi-auto friendly handgun round. When I first learned of this round several years ago there was no discussion of making it available to the civilian community.
 
The "light & fast" vs. "slow & heavy" conflict is the mainstay of every gun forum on the Internet, just like PC vs. Mac, Ford vs. Chevy, and Kirk vs. Picard. The arguements for both sides are compelling, but the issue is not going to be settled here, or anywhere probably.

Just for the record, though, hollow points in rifle rounds do not have the same effect as they do in handgun rounds. A hollow pointed rifle bullet has a tiny little indentation that aids in accuracy; it does not cause the bullet to expand in the target. HP handgun rounds have big wide hollows that cause the bullet to peel back and mushroom, when they reach the appropriate velocity. To make an expanding rifle round, the bullet has a core made of a softer, heavier metal than the jacket, and the core protrudes through to the tip. The difference in the momentum of the two metals causes the bullet to mushroom on impact. I'm not sure, but I think these kinds of rounds are prohibited from wartime use by the Hague Accords also.

Personally, I'm more of a "slow & heavy" man. I carry a .45 pistol and if some crazy circumstance caused me to need a battle rifle to defend my home, I'd probably grab the M1 before an AR-15. (I also use a PC, drive a Chevy, and prefer Picard to Kirk, if you care.) However, if I was 25 years younger and going into combat, I'd probably rather have a high-capacity 9mm handgun and an M-16, so that I could carry more ammo. (That Garand is a heavy mother.)

The .223 rounds used by the NATO armed forces can be quite effective manstoppers, as they tend to yaw and fragment on impact, causing wound ballistics similar to an expanded round. I think the big problem today is the short barrels they're using, which reduce velocity. The platform was designed around a 20" barrel, not the short little things on the M-4s. (I also think the M-16 is a crummy design as far as field maintenance is concerned, especially in the desert, but that's another story.)

As far as these wildcat handgun rounds are concerned, I don't see the point of them. You're not going to be able to push a .223 bullet out of a handgun to anywhere near the speeds needed to equate rifle performance, so the bullet will almost certainly not yaw or fragment on impact. All you're left with is a tiny hole and probably a big overpenetration problem. In a handgun, you only need enough velocity to achieve sufficient penetration without going clean through the target and hitting the next door neighbor. All of the standard centerfire handgun rounds will tend to overpenetrate using FMJ bullets. That's why hollow points are used practically everywhere today except in the military. If you can push a 124 grain 9mm bullet to a high enough speed to cause sufficient expansion and penetration, what advantage is there to using a bullet that's half the size, travelling at a higher speed? What do you gain?
 
This is the eternal ammo debate.

I think there are a lot of gun and ammo-websites that discuss putting small tips on big cases. I agree that the idea is to get the hit at long distance or to penetrate armour.

For stopping, like many people, I believe that slow and heavy is it, but of course not against body armour. When I was younger, I carried a .38 with those cheap cast-lead bullets(at that time), and usually one good hit in the central region would could stop and drop anyone, based on the cases examined in my country. So many one-shot stops. Surprising, right?

Sorry, I don't have experience with using such ammo. Suggest you look up Gun websites like "GunBlast" etc. I believe they did something with the 5.56 also, along with many other ammo types.

Dear RickinKY
In relation to the DC sniper situation, IMO, this weakling was not concerned with stopping people, he was interested in killing them. IMHO, lying there and potting innocent civilians, is a very different situation from when someone is running at you, or shooting at you, and you want to stop him immediately. Even with his "mouse" round, since he could pot the innocent civilians at his leisure, in whatever part of the body he wanted, of course they would perish.

Put a "mouse" round into someone's head and they die also. Let a bunch of LEOs run at him shooting rounds past his head and let me tell you, he will NOT be happy with his AR-15 then.

As a sidenote, I qualified with the M-16 when I served last time, just like a million other forumites here.

In my opinion, this weakling did not demonstrate any gun skills beyond that of the average recruit and in terms of planning and determination, we should give him a fail grade. Thank goodness for his lack of ability, or else it would have been much worse.

A very Happy New Year to all
 
Rick in KY said:
The path of the bullet made a small primary wound channel, but the velocity of the round made a shock wave-generated secondary wound channel of several times the primary's diameter. It was impressive. Was it an exaggeration?
Click to expand...

figure2.gif


M-16 with 55 grain FMJ

figure3.gif


7.62mm 150 grain FMJ

A primary reason the military went to .223 is simple, if gruesome: A wounded enemy is better for our side than a dead one. Think about it: The bloke next to you is shot dead. You leave him and move on. In an hour, or a day, you dig a hole and bury him. Scenario 2: The bloke next to you is wounded. You have to treat him, then provide 2 to 4 men to carry him away to transport, which has to take him to a dressing station, then to a fully-equipped field hospital. Then he has to convalesce, etc. All of this is draining resources which might otherwise be deployed to fight you.

maximus otter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top