PDA

View Full Version : Agencies can now choose between three viable marking cartridge designs



justken2u
02-18-2010, 08:17 AM
UTM, one of the top 3 players in the world of marking cartridges, recently won a huge military contract for what is known as the CCMCK contract. www.ccmck.com As a result, there was a ton of R&D money put into their cartridge design. Where I could not previously recommend their ammunition for force on force training due to safety hazards, I can now report that it is a viable technology. The company has chosen to focus most of their attention on the military market, but they are servicing the law enforcement market through a company called Kilo Ten www.kilo10.com. Dan Kinkel, president of Kilo Ten, was at the 2009 SWAT Roundup conference demonstrating the newly revised munitions. Accuracy and marking performance was very good, however unlike ATK's Force-on-Force (www.forceonforce.com) marking ammunition which fits and functions very well in SIMUNITION's FX Conversion Kits (http://www.simunition.com/conversion_kits/conversion_kits_en.php), the UTM cartridges require their own proprietary conversion device. Agencies currently using conversion kits manufactured by SIMUNITION would be required to purchase all new conversion devices. These kits are approximately $200 per kit and from the tests I have run, function very well in the available weapon patterns although at this time UTM does not have the extensive weapon patterns available that SIMUNITION does.

For those agencies that have dedicated blue Glock 17T training pistols (see image below), UTM has created a replacement barrel for this gun (as well as a drop in kit for the regular Glock) for use with the UTM cartridges.

It was UTM's cartridge design for the M16 and its variants that made the UTM system more viable for military groups than SIMUNITION's original conversion device that required an entire upper receiver, recoil buffer, bolt carrier and magazine. The only thing required to fire the UTM 5.56 munitions was a replacement bolt. Safety was achieved through the use of a conventional ammunition discriminator bolt that uses a rim fire design instead of a center fire design for the cartridge. Attempts to fire conventional ammunition while the UTM conversion bolt is in place are unsuccessful.

Following the success of the UTM bolt-only conversion device, SIMUNITION came out with a competitive product requiring a bolt-only conversion device and a 5.56 caliber marking cartridge. Safety is achieved with the SIMUNITION conversion device through a slightly reduced diameter rim on their cartridge (AKA rebated rim) and a matching bolt face profile. Attempts to fire conventional munitions while the FX 5.56 conversion device is installed are unsuccessful WITH THE IMPORTANT EXCEPTION that munitions in the US Military inventory called the M862 SRTA cartridge (see photo below) WILL FIRE with the SIMUNITION conversion device installed. The M862 has a velocity in excess of 4,500 fps and is considered lethal ammunition and is NOT for use against human targets in training.

In head-to-head tests with the US Military, the UTM design won out over the SIMUNITION design for the multi-million dollar CCMCK contract. ATK does not as of this writing have a 5.56 cartridge but reports they are close to putting one into production. The ATK 5.56 ammunition will require the conversion bolt manufactured by SIMUNITION for use with their ammunition. Stay tuned!

Mully
02-18-2010, 10:51 AM
Ken,

Since we are on the topic of .223 simunition equipment. We have just received a couple of the bolt conversion kits (simunitions) and I'm assuming that additional padding would be likely needed for our role players with the .223 round. We use the force on force top armor, would that be sufficient or do we need to go heavier?

justken2u
02-18-2010, 01:40 PM
Hey Mully ... it should be OK. I know the SIMUNITION 5.56 runs a bit hot and as such I would pad your role player up very well. Remember ... no value in hurting your RP. Plus, no need for your RP to have the 5.56 ammo so any conventional PPE that you have for your officers should be fine.

Hope that helps.

K