Ran into this nomenclature buried in the federal solicitation for the MHS.
Does anyone have any insight?
Printable View
Ran into this nomenclature buried in the federal solicitation for the MHS.
Does anyone have any insight?
Yes.
It is unfortunately highly flawed and does not match any of the substantial LE derived handgun standards and results derived over the past 30 years. For that matter, it does not follow what the DOD JSWB-IPT standardized on in 2002-2006 after spending 6 million dollars, firing over 10,000 test shots, and analyzing extensive combat data.
It is brought to the American taxpayer by the same stellar folks who stole the M855A1 design...
If ballistics, firearms, and other things interest you in a technical way as a passion, you will end up bashing your head into a wall if you actually peek behind the iron curtain and see how various ammo/weapons are actually determined to be fielded.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocGKR
I was afraid a few months ago that this was going to happen. We'd be better off with ball ammo vs crappy JHPs
I googled "Federal Tissue Damage Model" and found nothing that appeared relevant. Could someone here provide a link where we could find the model online? Thanks.
According to the MHS RFP, this is a software package that you have to request (i.e. controlled). They send you a CD and five license keys.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtexan
I suspect you will not find this online.
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich_Jenkins
We finally get permission for the armed forces to use JHPs in handguns, and then perhaps buy JHP's that are worse than ball? Sounds like Congress might need to get involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Haggard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeep
It sounds like they already are. :(
Might be a safer bet if that is the case to issue out .45acp ball off of old contracts rather than use the equivalent of the old 9mm 115gr Silver Tip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeep