What is OTM?????

[abunaitoo]

This is not a cast bullet question, but I just have to know.
Found a box of American Eagle 308 OTM at the range today.
What does OTM stand for?????

I looked on the Federal web site, but nothing.

[SciFiJim]

OTM stands for Open Tip Match. The link to it at Midway is HERE (http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=713383)

[mike in co]

it is not leagal to shoot personel in war with a "hollow point" bullet. (geneva convention) the terminology is old when an open tip was only for an expanding bullet. when jacleted bullet design changed from an open base to an open tip it was for better ballistics, not better damage, tho we know hunting bullets will benefit from an hollow point IF it is part of the performance design. bullet makers discourage the use of target hollow point bullets for hunting becasue of poor terminal performance( they are not DESIGNED for expansion).

the us of a was taken to court over the use of "hollow point " bullets in our sniper rifles. i never heard the out come..but we shoot target bullets which are not designed for expansion, and i' am sure it was out defense.
now the military wants a longer ranger/harder hitting bullet for the m16 family. 77 gr....and to stay away from the above issue...simple change the name to what it really is..an "open tip match" bullet built for accuraccy, not a "hollow point" bullet built for terminal exspansion.

thus we have OTM bulets on today commercial market.

mike in co

[HORNET]

The Geneva Convention dealt with prisoners-of-war, the Hague Convention of the Laws of Civilized Warfare is the one that banned expanding bullets. IIRC, this was a reaction to the softpoint Dum-Dum .303 bullets being used by the Brits. Their idea of an appropriate response was the Mark 7 round with the aluminum-filled nose to induce tumbling on impact, much more destructive when it worked but more 'Civilized'.

[AZ-Stew]

Ain't it great? Shoot your enemy, but don't shoot him too much. As a SeaBee Military Instructor I took infantry weapons training from the Marines at Camp LeJeune, NC, for two weeks one summer. They told us we weren't allowed to use the M2 Browning .50 MG for anti-personnel use. We were, however, allowed to use it to destroy enemy equipment and war matériels. Examples given were uniforms, helmets, belt buckles, collar devices, etc.

Regards,

Stew

[Dale53]

Let's don't use hollow points - they are inhumane. So-o-o, let's drop napalm on them, let's blow them up with C-4, let's use Claymore's, let's drop 105mm and 155mm on enemy soldiers but, by all means, don't let us HURT them. Ohmigod!!

That sort of thinking meets the definition of insanity where I come from.

FWIW
Dale53

[SPRINGFIELDM141972]

If you kill a soldier he lies dead on the field. If you wound him, he is a burden on the enemies logistics. They have to get him off the field, they have to transport him, they have to supply medical resources and personnel. I am not saying I agree with the idea, just stating the reasoning.

Regards,
Everett

[lavenatti]

If I remember correctly the US never signed the Hague Accord.

While we aren't bound by it we still don't use HP ammo.

[sagacious]

Just as a point of accuracy, to my knowledge the US is not a signatory to that specific declaration of the Hague Convention prohibiting the use of small-caliber expanding bullets during times of war. The signing nations are indeed held to that restriction, but the US is not among them. Since the US is therefore not bound by that restriction and retains that capability for it's small-caliber ammuntion, it would be quite legal for the US to use expanding bullets during wartimes.

But there's always a 'however'... The US has adopted the general policy of agreeing with that prohibition of the use of bullets designed to expand upon hitting a target. That's been our policy, and is intended to avoid international censure among other things, but the US would not face war crimes proceedings in Geneva if such ammuntion were adopted and issued to troops.

This is a similar situation to the Ottawa Treaty on the prohibition of the use of anti-personnel mines. The US is not a signatory nation on that one either.

Not preaching, just sayin'. :drinks:

[Larry Gibson]

If you kill a soldier he lies dead on the field. If you wound him, he is a burden on the enemies logistics. They have to get him off the field, they have to transport him, they have to supply medical resources and personnel. I am not saying I agree with the idea, just stating the reasoning.

Regards,
Everett

Everett

I'm not want to disagree or argue but would just like to point out that we seem to hear this more and more with the advent of the internet. It is a myth and always has been. Never in my 42 years in the Army did I ever read that in any manual. To the contrary we read numerous things like "the mission of the infantryman is to close with and kill the enemy", etc. In marksmanship training there is never any mentione of shooting to wound, etc. I have heard it mentioned a few times and when asked where that is written as policy they barrack BS artists usually just go off mumbling about some DI in basic told them so.......

f you stop an think about it ("reason" if you will) if a wounded enemy soldier is a burden on the enemies logistics it is because the enemy is still in control of the battlefield and you have been driven off or have lost. A wounded enemy soldier would be "good" only if he were a burden on your logistical system as you would have won. Too many enemy wounded indeed become a burden and slow your own momentum down, not good. Besides, if you are the infantryman (or should I say "specops operator" because that's what everyone claims to be these days) leaving wounded either becomes a risk to you or you will have a wiser and more determined enemy to fight again one day.

No, Soldiers and marines are not trained to wound. Another point is if we only want to "wound" then there shouldn't be any of the current controversy over the lack of stopping power with the current 5.56 cartridge. It is in fact doing a splendid job of merely wounding. Now it we believe in conspircy theories then we may believe you are right and all has come to fruitation. However, on the battlefield it is kill or be killed and there is no second place winner.

Larry Gibson

[TCLouis]

Find
Fix
Kill the enemy

Now in a time of kinder gentler enemies I think it is

Find
Fix
Neutralize (or some such claptrap)

I do not think the comparison for accuracy is all that fair I would not stand at 800 and certainly not 600 meters and feel comfy, even it were me shooting with an A-4.

[abunaitoo]

I've never seen it discribed like that before.
I didn't have a loaded round to see what the bullet looked like, so no way of knowing what it was.

[Hurricane]

The Hague Convention wanted to make some rules but did not want to any serious restriction on military forces. The banning of expanding bullets was an easy choice because the military prefered solid points because they feed better in machine guns. It is a matter of pertending to give something up in order to get the perferred bullet made standard.

[Deliverator]

It is true that the military is NOT trained to shoot to wound. Some special operations forces are trained during escape and evasion that wounding an enemy can slow down the force that is chasing you. Thus giving you a little more time to get out of dodge. But if you can avoid confrontation completely that is generally better, less chance of you know... dieing?

[SPRINGFIELDM141972]

Everett

I'm not want to disagree or argue but would just like to point out that we seem to hear this more and more with the advent of the internet. It is a myth and always has been. Never in my 42 years in the Army did I ever read that in any manual. To the contrary we read numerous things like "the mission of the infantryman is to close with and kill the enemy", etc. In marksmanship training there is never any mentione of shooting to wound, etc. I have heard it mentioned a few times and when asked where that is written as policy they barrack BS artists usually just go off mumbling about some DI in basic told them so.......

f you stop an think about it ("reason" if you will) if a wounded enemy soldier is a burden on the enemies logistics it is because the enemy is still in control of the battlefield and you have been driven off or have lost. A wounded enemy soldier would be "good" only if he were a burden on your logistical system as you would have won. Too many enemy wounded indeed become a burden and slow your own momentum down, not good. Besides, if you are the infantryman (or should I say "specops operator" because that's what everyone claims to be these days) leaving wounded either becomes a risk to you or you will have a wiser and more determined enemy to fight again one day.

No, Soldiers and marines are not trained to wound. Another point is if we only want to "wound" then there shouldn't be any of the current controversy over the lack of stopping power with the current 5.56 cartridge. It is in fact doing a splendid job of merely wounding. Now it we believe in conspircy theories then we may believe you are right and all has come to fruitation. However, on the battlefield it is kill or be killed and there is no second place winner.

Larry Gibson

Larry,

I certainly can not find written documentation of my statement nor did I state that our brave young men were trained to wound as opposed to kill. I only stated what I was told by a retired army officer when we were having a discussion concerning the 5.56 versus 7.62 ammo controversy. If I stated a mis-fact then I retract my statement and apologize to all to whom I may have quoted a fallacy.

In my defense, I did not agree with the colonel's opinion/statement only re-stated it.

Regards,
Everett

[Larry Gibson]

Everett

Absolutely no need to defend anything. That myth is a common misconception. Believe me being a colonel (absolutely no disrespect to your colonal friend) does not mean one can not believe the myth. It does sound good, untill you really think about it. If one reads the official justification used, for example, regarding the adoption of the 5.56 vs 7.62 (the militsry, Army and USMC in particular, did not want the change) you find no mention of the "advantage" in wounding an enemy. What you find is justification that the 5.56 because of it's "tumbling effect" cases the same terminal effect as the 7.62 NATO. It was only pundits outside of official channels that used the myth as some sort of justification. In the heat of battle (even in todays where we seek the moral high ground) no infantyman ever thinks about wounding the enemy.

Again, no problem with your post at all and no apology please. It was good for conversation and added to the thread.

Larry Gibson