PDA

View Full Version : mk262 mod 1 in a DDm4 for HD



Long tom coffin
05-30-2012, 09:22 PM
I'm setting up and training with my DDM4. I'm going to be buying a 500 round case of mk262 mod1 for $200 bucks from an associate. I've been reading some good stuff about it, but not as much as I'd like. Would this make an effective HD m4 round? Even if not, I'm still going to buy, as $200 for that amount of black hills practice ammo is still a good price.

Any help would be appreciated,

Cheers!

tremiles
05-30-2012, 09:44 PM
I use it (or as closely equivalent as I can find) as HD ammo. I live in an apartment and need to be aware of over-penetration. If I were more concerned about barrier blind performance, it would not be my first choice.

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk 2

TGS
05-30-2012, 10:21 PM
This should help immensely on understanding the capabilities and limitations of various 5.56 loads, including Mk262 http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19881

See this for some more good follow-on info, though not as directly related to your Mk262 question: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

JHC
05-31-2012, 07:19 AM
While more recent barrier blind ammo is apparently the hot thing for general patrol or mil use your's is still pretty highly rated for the purpose you describe.

I've killed several deer with civilian loads that were generally similiar - single shots of Black Hills 77 gr OTM and it's been devastating under 100 yards. Never tried it further out. Can't see deer that far round'heyah.

Odin Bravo One
05-31-2012, 03:23 PM
I'm sure there is someone somewhere who will disagree based on data on paper or in jell-o, but 262 is pretty legit in terms of performance on two legged creatures. It is my preferred round for just about every 5.56 application I can think of.

justcor
05-31-2012, 03:31 PM
DocGKR wrote an excellent post over on M4C http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19881

Failure2Stop
05-31-2012, 06:09 PM
I'm sure there is someone somewhere who will disagree based on data on paper or in jell-o, but 262 is pretty legit in terms of performance on two legged creatures. It is my preferred round for just about every 5.56 application I can think of.

I concur.
There might be "better", but 262 is pretty damn good.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Long tom coffin
05-31-2012, 06:27 PM
I've read alot of the stuff by Doc on m4c already, and it's good stuff, but most of it isn't terribly relevant to me as I'm not interested really in the barrier blind types of ammo. I live in a pretty densely populated suburban area in a 1970's era town house with walls that have the consistency of papier mache. The last thing I need is heavily penetrating ammo.

Jay Cunningham
05-31-2012, 06:36 PM
I happen to choose 75 gr TAP for HD, but if I could get my hands on mk262 I'd rely on it in a heartbeat based upon research.

Failure2Stop
05-31-2012, 09:27 PM
The last thing I need is heavily penetrating ammo.

Just put it in meat and you'll be ok regardless of which of the modern designs you choose. Put it into a single wall, and there will be issues regardless of which one you choose.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

TGS
05-31-2012, 09:56 PM
I've read alot of the stuff by Doc on m4c already, and it's good stuff, but most of it isn't terribly relevant to me as I'm not interested really in the barrier blind types of ammo. I live in a pretty densely populated suburban area in a 1970's era town house with walls that have the consistency of papier mache. The last thing I need is heavily penetrating ammo.

DocGKR addressed this in his information on M4C....he didn't speak only to killing dudes through barriers. If I'm not mistaken, some departments choose loads like Mk262 specifically because of its poor barrier performance for room entries in urban neighborhoods. This is actually a tertiary factor that has influenced PD's in their switch from handgun-caliber SMG's to 5.56 caliber carbines general. He addresses this in his post that is extremely relevant unlike you claim:

Home Defense Long Guns (http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=44869)


Keep in mind that over the past 20 years, the vast majority of the 5.56mm/.223 loads we tested have exhibited significantly less penetration than 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and 12 ga. shotgun projectiles after first penetrating through interior walls. Stray 5.56mm/.223 bullets seem to offer a reduced risk of injuring innocent bystanders and an inherent reduced risk of civil litigation in situations where bullets miss their intended target and enter or exit structures, thus 5.56mm/.223 caliber weapons may be safer to use in CQB situations, home defense scenarios, and in crowded urban environments than handgun service caliber or 12 ga. weapons.

So, given that he claims Mk262 to have poor intermediate barrier performance, and the fact that 5.56 weapons in general offer reduced risk, I think you can deduce something very relevant to your question and it should serve as a good answer.

If you need more than that to feel safe about using Mk262, there's a better article I think you could read:
The Presumptive Hazards of Over-Penetration (http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=56486)

As Doc usually finishes, ammo choice is down the list behind training and developing a warrior mindset. You can choose a load with some reduced risk, but as F2S mentions it's still going to be a bad day. It might have a reduced chance of killed little Suzy, but if you miss and hit little Suzy, you've still shot little Suzy! There simply isn't a load available that will kill bad guys and only bounce off innocents. Mk318 SOST would probably be counter to your goals, but Mk262 is probably as good a load selection as you can make. The more important factor is training.

DocGKR
06-02-2012, 01:05 PM
Please check the stickies at the top of the ammo forum--there is a lot of info there now...

G60
06-05-2012, 08:37 PM
Is anyone aware of the contract accuracy standard for this load? Errornet sources cite anything from sub-moa to 4moa+

DocGKR
06-06-2012, 03:22 PM
Since the contract standard for Mk318 is 2 MOA, you might infer that the more accurate Mk262 should have a contract standard no greater than that, if not better...