Talk:Raufoss Mk 211

Raufoss .50 BMG cartridge

I removed this big from the Raufoss page on the town. I don't know if it is redundant with this article or not.

"Raufoss" is also a common term used to describe a particular type of multipurpose .50 caliber ammunition created and produced by the munitions factory in Norway of the same name. It is officially called Mk211 in the USA or the NM140 MP (NM160 MP Tracer) in Europe. The .50 Raufoss multipurpose cartridge was designed to give special forces operators and Browning machine gun controllers a round that could be used as an armor-piercing incendiary explosive round that would be suitable for anti-material targets such as vehicles and parked aircraft. Also it could be employed for anti-personnel targets at long-range. The Raufoss .50 round itself is easily identified by its sea-green colored bullet tip over a underlying tip color of white/silver. The headstamp on the casing can also help to identify the round as Raufoss and some common headstamps include: HXP89, WCC94 & FN91; or HXP, WCC or FN with different 2-digit numbers as production year suffixes. The US military refers to this round as the "MK211 Mod 0" .50 BMG cartridge. The linked, grade B version of this ammo is Mod 1. The internal characteristics of the round are such that it contains a tungsten carbide penetrator tip, Zirconium incendiary material, and hi-explosive tip to disperse fragments inside target. The term "high-explosive" is a bit of a stretch to describe the fragmenting compound in the bullets tip which is meant to distribute the incendiary compound after penetration of the target. The bullet does not actually contain any C4 or Semtex explosive, but a similar less-dangerous material is contained within. Technically it is legal for civilians to own this ammunition, although it must be through the appropriate channel or purchase from dealers who have supply run-offs from government contracts. Raufoss ammunition can only truly be found in the .50 BMG caliber, although the gunbroker.com seller "Ammotogo" does sell a line of copycat "raufus" (note spelling) ammunition in smaller rifle calibers such as .308, 30-06, 7.62x39, & .223. Although the listings claim phenomenal result from these rounds, those smaller calibers are not nearly as impressive as the original .50 BMG round, but are mostly an improved flash-bang type of bullet tip. Original .50 BMG raufoss cartridges will sell for anywhere from $40.00 to $60.00 on the resale ammunition market through such go-between auction sites as Gunbroker.com and Auctionarms.com. The complete raufoss .50 cartridges are not legal in California, Illinois, NYC, or Washington D.C. Arsenikk 18:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it was not in the correct location at the Raufoss Norway page. good job. I copied some of the ID and nomenclature information into the article from that body above. The rest of it for the most part is redundant B4Ctom1 20:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Fuse or fuze?

"Fuse" or "fuze" - I originally used the term fuze in the article, believing it to be the correct term, but somebody changed it to fuse. What is the best term to use... (yeah yeah nitpick I know, but as a non-native english speaker I'm interested in what the best term is.) Abel29a 03:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Here in the wiki: [[1]] a fuse is one thing, and a Fuze is what is used in the tip of a bullet or projectile. I think you were right, and whomever changed it was wrong. I am changing it back. B4Ctom1 04:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"Or so they say..."

"Most nations using the round train their soldiers not to deploy the projectile against personnel, but in the heat of battle such regulations are easily overlooked. Also, many parties currently fielding the ammunition have no such regulations."

Whos to say? Can someone document this statement. Dosent read like something that should be here without just cause.

Magnus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.69.180.251 (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Legality

The US military's official position is based on three things: 1).50BMG FMJ hardball is (duh) massively lethal against personnel 2).50BMG Ball is widely used against personnel by many nations. The Russians use a similar sized HMG caliber. Thus, it's use against personnel is largely uncontroversial politically. 3) Thus, the IC/HE aspects of the Raufoss do not INCREASE the lethality of the round beyond the politically-accepted level of lethality you'd get from a regular hardball .50BMG. Which is pretty much 100%.

I guess the gist is that, unlike an HE 5.56mm NATO round (for instance), the round can't get any more lethal to unprotected personnel so it doesn't qualify as unduly deadly. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 04:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

'Legality' is a loaded and wholly incorrect term. The St. Petersburg Declaration was an agreement between a slect number of nations. Many nations - such as the US - were never parties to that agreement. Hence, the issue of 'legality' does not apply as they never agreed to abide by such conduct. It is only a question of whether a select few nations have bound themselves to a manner of conduct. As sovereign nations, there is no over-arching legal authorty - except involving those issues to which each sovereign nation agrees to abide through treaties. Simply because one group of nations agreed to something 150 years ago it no way makes it 'illegal' for other nations.

67.187.136.140 (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the Legality section should be deleted completely. The concepts of "legal war" and "legal ammunition" are politically charged and fact-deficient.
Potential re-write (of the first paragraph, in the event it is not deleted completely) from me (TheMadPenguin, who has password problems today):
/* There has been much debate over whether the Mk 211 projectile is legal to use against personnel, or if it is strictly anti-matériel ammunition. (Sentence deleted for political charge ("legal"), without references to give scope or value to "much" or "debate". ) */ The International Committee of the Red Cross has sought to have the ammunition banned, due to concern over the incendiary and explosive components and their effect on personnel. Under the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 the "military or naval" use of explosive or incendiary projectiles with a mass of under 400 grams is forbidden . Only 17 nations were parties to the St. Petersburg Declaration, and that declaration excuses non-signatory parties, and any war involving non-signatory parties. Further, the Hague treaties of 1899 and 1907 – which superseded the St. Petersburg Declaration, and were signed by a far wider circle of nations – do permit the use of such ammunition for auto-cannons and heavy machine guns. Machine guns firing .50 cal/12.7mm ammunition are heavy machine guns. At best, the ICRC's position can be applied to the signatory nations of the St. Petersburg Declaration (which ceases to be applicable even to them, as soon as their war is joined by a non-signator party, ergo WWII was not under the Declaration (The Empire of Japan v China, (1931: neither party signatory), Nazi Germany v Poland (1939: Poland was not a signatory party), and “the Axis powers” vs The USA (1941: The USA was non-signatory)); worse, the ICRC claim that the declaration has "the force of law" has no reference to any basis; and worst, the ICRC's position was made moot more than 100 years ago by subsequent international conventions, declarations, and treaties.

References

Zircon powder?

The picture shows that it has a bit of zircon powder surrounding part of the penetrator. Why is that? --StarChaser Tyger (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Zirconium has an incendiary effect. --D.E. Watters (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Queston about the illustration

I noticed that there is part of the round that is labeled "lead steel". Is this supposed to read "lead seal"?

I know next to nothing about guns, so forgive me if this would be obvious to someone who is better informed on the subject.Ormewood (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have since found an illustration at this location:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mk211_Raufoss.jpg

which does list this part as a "lead seal". I don't yet know how to edit or replace illustrations. Maybe someone else could have a try at it.Ormewood (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

how much zirconium and RDX?

does anyone knows how much zirconium powder there is in every projectile? i also read that the RDX charge is divided into two part - first one penetrates the armor steel, and seconed one explodes within the the body of the airplane. anyone know something about it? what is the amount and ratio of RDX in the projectile?

is it really making any change or just nice to have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.85.43 (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Raufoss Mk 211. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060316071347/http://www.nammo.com/templates/Product.aspx?id=204 to http://www.nammo.com/templates/Product.aspx?id=204

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with High-explosive incendiary/armor-piercing ammunition

The content of the abovementioned article is almost entirely about the particular Raufoss projectile rather than a broad generic treatment of the concept. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

That may be, but the one is clearly a subset of the other. A merger would leave the subject without a general article. The solution to the perceived problem is to expand High-explosive incendiary/armor-piercing ammunition, not to merge the two. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

"TW 4" headstamp

The "TW 4" headstamp was only used in 1944. It was nothing more than a cost-cutting maneuver to utilize left-over "TW 43" dies by grinding off the "3." Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant was mothballed soon after, and did not subsequently manufacture or assemble any .50 BMG ammunition, let alone any Mk211 rounds.

Mk211 rounds with a "TW 4" headstamp are fakes, created to take advantage of the high price of Mk211 rounds on the civilian market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.73.181 (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead steel

Lead steel is a valid grade of alloy steel, see

Jim Whitaker (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

References