M855 to be replaced in 2009 [Archive]

View Full Version : M855 to be replaced in 2009

DocGKR

11-26-08, 00:12

As reported by Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/11/ap_greenammo_110708/), current M855 is to be replaced by a new lead free load called M855 LFS. The new ATK/Lake City projectile uses a bismuth-tin core and as discussed on pages 5-6 of the new PEO ammo article (http://www.pica.army.mil/pmccs/docs/PEO_Ammo.pdf) the cartridge uses an improved propellant, has reduced flash, increased velocity, and better aerodynamics. The new M855 LFS projectile does not use conventional FMJ construction. Unlike current M855, the dark grey steel penetrator of the new M855 LFS extends THROUGH the jacket nose, reminiscent of the old Remington Bronze Point.

http://www.tridentconcepts.com/alumni/Portals/0/NTForums_Attach/111258770371.jpg

http://www.remington.com/images/products/ammo/centerfire/brzept.jpg

Unfortunately, according to LTC Christopher Day, the U.S. Army’s plant commander at Lake City:

"The lead-free cartridges will display the same performance as cartridges with lead...""

Given the substantial costs associated with the new lead free cartridge's development, as well as the increased cost per unit, it would be nice if M855 LFS offered substantially improved terminal performance over current M855...

Finally, while aerosolized lead from primers and exposed bullet bases is a significant cause of lead pollution on ranges, the elemental lead in projectile cores has NOT been proven to be a source of environmental lead contamination.

markm

11-26-08, 07:17

Matching the mediocre performance and accuracy of the SS109 bullet shouldn't be hard! :rolleyes:

Littlelebowski

11-26-08, 08:31

This is probably a move to appease the tree huggers and Al Gore.

Jay Cunningham

11-26-08, 08:38

It's amazing what they will and what they won't spend money on.

LOKNLOD

11-26-08, 08:46

Will the steel penetrator be exposed, then? If so, any possible issues with chewing up feed ramps?

dtibbals

11-26-08, 10:00

Lets hope that means a lot of surplus of the "old" stuff hits the streets!!!

FromMyColdDeadHand

11-26-08, 10:16

Is this mainly because of training here in the states, or are really worried about lead contamination in foreign countries as we shoot the people that live there? I'm sure they will be thrilled that we are so thoughtful.

I'm not up on all the CA laws, but will this give them some options out there?

ddemis

11-26-08, 11:38

Just something else to spend OUR money on. I wish they would just switch to a better round like the 6.8 or 6.5 and give a soldier what his heart really wants, KILLABILITY!

Telperion

11-26-08, 11:46

The technologically advanced, environmentally friendly M855 LFS 5.56mm cartridge will enhance shot consistency and eliminate approximately 2,000 metric tons of lead currently left in theater or on training ranges each year.
I never imagined we'd have the first army in history that actually cared how much lead it left behind in theater. :rolleyes:

Does anyone know how much the projectile weighs?

DocGKR

11-26-08, 13:09

It is reportedly 62 gr.

Savior 6

11-26-08, 14:06

Lets hope that means a lot of surplus of the "old" stuff hits the streets!!!

This is my line of thinking. Bring on all that "old stuff", I'll take it. Maybe we'll get to see some decent 5.556 prices again.

Savior 6

11-26-08, 14:06

5.56;)

Telperion

11-26-08, 14:58

If the bullet is 62gr and the PEO ammo is claiming increased velocities over M855, then that's one hot load. It will be interesting to see the numbers.

Submariner

11-26-08, 15:18

Lets hope that means a lot of surplus of the "old" stuff hits the streets!!!

Nope. Then Congress can ban lead just as they banned Freon.

Then watch Obama sign it!

decodeddiesel

11-26-08, 15:42

Lets hope that means a lot of surplus of the "old" stuff hits the streets!!!

Sadly no, thank former President Clinton for that one. Surplus US made ammo cannot be outright sold to civilians. It is out right destroyed.

ETA: Doc, do you think that statement from LTC Day could just be a blanket PR statement? I mean this design is a pretty radical departure from the SS109 projectile and I would imagine there is going to be some difference in terminal performance.

Also would this projectile now be identified as "armor piercing" for legal purposes?

Savior 6

11-26-08, 15:49

Sadly no, thank former President Clinton for that one. Surplus US made ammo cannot be outright sold to civilians. It is out right destroyed.

ETA: Doc, do you think that statement from LTC Day could just be a blanket PR statement? I mean this design is a pretty radical departure from the SS109 projectile and I would imagine there is going to be some difference in terminal performance.

Also would this projectile now be identified as "armor piercing" for legal purposes?

:( :mad: :( :mad: :( :mad: :( :mad: :(

DocGKR

11-26-08, 15:56

decodeddiesel

11-26-08, 16:59

:( :mad: :( :mad: :( :mad: :( :mad: :(

??

Is there something I can help you with?

decodeddiesel

11-26-08, 17:14

To the best of my knowledge, ATF has not ruled on M855 LFS, but why would it legally be any different than Remington Bronze Point?

Keep in mind that the Big Army's first very expensive attempt at environmentally friendly ammo, the tungsten-nylon core "green" M855 ammunition was poorly conceived, badly implemented, did not work, and has turned out to be highly toxic:

http://www.capecodonline.com/a...80911/NEWS/809110313

http://archive.capecodonline.c...en/howtungsten17.htm

http://www.crrel.usace.army.mi...lreports/TR-07-5.pdf

Doc, a heads up your links are not working.

Yeah, I was in the active Army for the "leadless M855" boondoggle.

I suppose the only legal difference one could draw between a Rem Bronze Point and this ammo is that this new M855 is issued to the military, and the "core" is steel and not bronze.

Intuitively do you think this new ammo would exhibit enhanced blind barrier performance and decreased fragmentation thresh hold over SS109? Mind you yours is about the only opinion I would value for an "intuitive assesment" of this new ammo.

Finally, will you be testing it?

DocGKR

11-26-08, 20:24

Thanks--links fixed.

Saginaw79

11-26-08, 20:27

They cant surplus the ammo of to us peons, per a Bill Clinton EO

It has to be sent to a proper facility, and demilled, then someone can buy the components and load the cartridge up again

Savior 6

11-27-08, 19:33

No wonder the s**t is so exspensive.

BushmasterFanBoy

11-27-08, 22:33

Any info on terminal performance? Fragmentation out of 14.5" barrels?

Am I also correct in seeing the penetrator is partially external?

RAM Engineer

11-29-08, 22:39

someone on LF questioned the possibility of the exposed steel core wearing out feedramps. I'd like to hear how that is dealt with or if it is a non issue.

Avenger11

11-30-08, 11:35

Before anyone gets excited about surplus M855, consider that we are providing M4 carbines in the thousands to the Iraqi Security Forces. I am confident that all of that military M855 and M856 would never see civilian hands even if it were legal.

Turnkey11

01-04-09, 13:35

They cant surplus the ammo of to us peons, per a Bill Clinton EO

It has to be sent to a proper facility, and demilled, then someone can buy the components and load the cartridge up again

The guy I bought from sold pulled M855 projectiles for $35 per 1000, $40 per 1000 if you want them cleaned of pull marks. By far the cheapest I have found .223 bullets for reloading, anywhere.:cool:

Turnkey11

01-04-09, 13:37

Just something else to spend OUR money on. I wish they would just switch to a better round like the 6.8 or 6.5 and give a soldier what his heart really wants, KILLABILITY!

Id be happy with a 62 or 70 gr barnes TSX; Im all about spending money and being environmental about it.:D

bernieb90

02-27-09, 16:07

I have been doing a bit of research on AP ammo definitions lately.

The Federal definition of AP is:

(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and
which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other
substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass,
bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or

(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and
intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25
percent of the total weight of the projectile.

(C) The term `armor piercing ammunition' does not include shotgun shot
required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting
purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile
which the Secretary finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting
purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Secretary
finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge
used in an oil and gas well perforating device."

If you note this definition requires that the core be constructed entirely of the offending substance. M855 is therefore not AP because the core is lead with a steel insert. M855 LFS should fall under the same definition.

I am interested in the feedramp issue as well. Are there any updates on this?

DocGKR

02-27-09, 16:29

The new M855 LFS appears to have reasonably good unobstructed soft tissue performance, but like current M855, does very poorly after automobile windshield intermediate barriers. In addition, the new load does not penetrate level III/IV body armor any differently than current M855. Accuracy appears to be somewhat variable, as expected for a bullet using a 3 part construction...

DocGKR

06-07-09, 22:12

The Army has now revealed that M80 FMJ is also going to be replaced with a LFS (Lead Free Slug) version similar to the new M855 LFS. In addition, M856 tracer is going to be redesigned into a LFS version: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniiGrassano.pdf.

More importantly, Crane (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniii8524.pdf) has now publicly acknowledged the existence of the SOST cartridges, the 5.56 mm 62 gr Mk318 Mod0 OTM and 7.62x51 mm 130 gr Mk319 Mod0 OTM. These are non-bonded versions of the ATK TOTM projectile made for the Marine Corps Barrier Blind RFI, as noted on page 12 of my NDIA briefing from last year (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf). The SOST rounds are optimized for relatively short barrel weapons, use heat stable, flash suppressed powder, and offer good terminal performance, with early upset and reasonably good intermediate barrier performance for a non-bonded projectile. The SOST/TOTM is an outstanding, simple, adaptive design--projectiles can be manufactured with a traditional lead core or in a lead-free version, bonded or non-bonded. Chuck Marsh and the folks at Crane deserve a standing ovation for this well designed and implemented project--Bravo Zulu!

Furthermore, Crane has announced the development of two new sniper cartridges, the 7.62 x51 mm Mk316 175 gr OTM and the .300 Win Mag 220 gr Mk248 Mod1. Although the Mk316 uses the same 175 gr SMK as M118LR, it offers better accuracy and consistency for precision shots at long range. Likewise, the enhanced performance of the Mk248 Mod1 reportedly extends the range of existing .300 Win Mag Mk13 Mod5 rifles out to 1500 meters, so new .338 Lap Mag weapons and ammo do not have to be procured at a time of tightening budgets.

Failure2Stop

06-07-09, 22:48

More importantly, Crane (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniii8524.pdf) has now publicly acknowledged the existence of the SOST cartridges, the 5.56 mm 62 gr Mk318 Mod0 OTM and 7.62x51 mm 130 gr Mk319 Mod0 OTM. These are non-bonded versions of the ATK TOTM projectile made for the Marine Corps Barrier Blind RFI, as noted on page 12 of my NDIA briefing from last year. The SOST rounds are optimized for relatively short barrel weapons, use heat stable, flash suppressed powder, and offer good terminal performance, with early upset and reasonably good intermediate barrier performance for a non-bonded projectile. Chuck Marsh and the folks at Crane deserve a standing ovation for this well designed and implemented project--Bravo Zulu!

Yay! We can talk about this now!
Is there any news about implementation of the SOST to conventional units?
Have they been cleared through JAG yet?

Jack-O

06-07-09, 23:40

WOW!! Thats a huge change in stuff!!

What is the metal used in the nose of the 556/762?

Can you tell us the accuracy requirement of the 300 winmag?

Iraqgunz

06-08-09, 01:47

Since JAG has already approved OTM rounds in the past, wouldn't this just be a rubber stamp?

Yay! We can talk about this now!
Is there any news about implementation of the SOST to conventional units?
Have they been cleared through JAG yet?

Failure2Stop

06-08-09, 07:44

Since JAG has already approved OTM rounds in the past, wouldn't this just be a rubber stamp?

I really have no idea.
It would make sense though.
It may have been done long ago.
I would just like to get it without the SCAB luggage :p.

Beat Trash

06-08-09, 09:10

Wow,

The 5.56mm loading (MK318 MOD 0) looks to be real interesting.

What would the chances be of this becoming available to LE/Civilians in the future?

Nathan_Bell

06-08-09, 10:15

??

Is there something I can help you with?

I would imagine that is due to the potential for ATF declaring it AP and killing a source of ammunition. That is how I took it.

dookie1481

07-01-09, 04:44

Wow a 130 gr OTM 7.62? WTF is this flying out of? That ain't going far...

Jay

tpd223

07-01-09, 05:04

dookie1481

07-01-09, 05:12

I don't think that one is supposed to fly far, I'm pretty sure it's for knocking the crap out of smelly bearded men at close range, maybe in the 13" barrel Heavy SCAR.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as70-e.htm

Yeah I kinda figured that...just never heard of a 7.62 that light in the military...though I fired a 110 gr OTM into some field expedient ballistic gelatin and it was interesting...

Jay

DocGKR

07-06-09, 01:37

Mk318 Mod0 5.56mm barrier round w/62 grain reverse drawn jacketed bullet: NSN 1305-01-573-2229

Mk319 Mod0 7.62mm barrier round w/130 grain reverse drawn jacketed bullet: NSN 1305-01-572-8492

Mk316 Mod0 7.62mm special ball, long range w/175 grain Sierra Match King bullet with Gold Medal match primer: NSN 1305-01-567-6944

Mk248 Mod1 300 Win Mag Match w/ 220 grain Sierra Match King bullet: NSN 1305-01-568-7504

Saginaw79

07-06-09, 18:46

Wow, good thing all those people we shoot wont get lead poisoning :rolleyes:

Saginaw79

07-06-09, 18:46

Lets hope that means a lot of surplus of the "old" stuff hits the streets!!!

Nope, cant happen, Willy boy signed an EO that the ammo must be demilled so the best you'll get is components if they dont outright use or destry it

huklbrry

07-06-09, 22:24

Demilled?:confused:

mark5pt56

07-07-09, 07:50

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniii8524.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniii8550.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/thursdaysessionxi8272.pdf

DocGKR

08-10-09, 18:38

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/08/army_green_bullet_080809w/

DocGKR

08-18-09, 11:21

Army Times, Monday 17 August
Corps studies new 5.56mm round
Dan Lamothe

The Corps is considering fielding a new 5.56mm round developed by U.S. Special Operations Command to all Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan, Marine officials said.

Senior Marine leaders will decide whether the Corps should replace its 5.56mm ammunition with the new AB49 5.56mm round developed by the Special Operations Support Team, or SOST, after they are briefed this month, officials with Marine Corps Systems Command told the Marine gunner community Aug. 4.

The Corps was interested in buying another new bullet, the M855A1 Lead Free Slug under development by the Army, but the fielding of that round will be delayed at least a year, Marine officials said. The Army stopped production of the slug in July after tests showed it had trajectory problems when used in hot weather, said Army Lt. Col. Jeff Woods, product manager for the Army's small-caliber ammunition program.
As a short-term solution, SysCom recommended that the Corps purchase the new SOST round, which is expected to perform better than the existing 5.56mm rounds commonly used in Iraq and Afghanistan now, Marine officials said.

Testing shows the new round performs consistently from shot to shot, and lot to lot, and is more accurate than the existing rounds, both in flight and when traveling through barriers, such as walls, doors and automobile glass.

The Army's lead-free round was expected to be fielded this month, with 20 million rounds rolled out initially. Designed with a bismuth-tin alloy beneath a steel penetrating tip, the bullet did not regularly follow its planned trajectory in testing, Woods said, but ballistic officials would not disclose the temperatures at which the problems were discovered.

Marine officials said that while the development of the new SOST round was launched by SOCom, ballistics experts at Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane, Ind., incorporated needs the Corps expressed into the program three years ago. The needs communicated to SOCom were not shared at the gunner symposium.
If the Corps adopts the new round, it also will need to coordinate an effort to remove all existing rounds from combat zones. While there are some identifying markers, they look similar enough to the new SOST round that they could be easily confused, Marine officials said.

Ultimately, the Corps is still interested in the Army's new M855A1 round, Marine officials said. If development hurdles can be cleared, the Corps will evaluate the SOCom round against the lead-free slug and decide which one suits Marine needs better, officials said.

PA PATRIOT

08-18-09, 12:46

They need to worry more about "EFFECTIVE" caliber and projectile then this multi million dollar waste of lead free bullets. Who are they trying to save here enemy combatants with the current issue crappy 5.56 munitions or are honored fighting force? Its time to kick it up a notch and get the 6.8mm to the field and let are Marines and Soldiers have a Superior weapon to help keep them safe and get the job done.

Cwolf88

01-02-10, 17:18

There are several issues with lead driving the move to lead-free ammo. FMJ often do not cover the bullet's lead base so lead is vaporized.

1. Shooters and range support personnel are exposed to lead in the air and lead dust which is both breathed in and ingested. Which is why folks should wash their hands with an anti-lead soap after shooting. A platoon in combat might shoot 20,000 rds in a day. Range soil levels can get quite high.

2. Lead dust on clothing and gear can be transferred to car interiors and folks doing the laundry. So, families can be affected. Pregnant women, babies, and children do not tolerate lead exposure well.

3. Lead in berms percolates through the soil into the water table.

You can see lead removing materials at http://www.esca-tech.com/.

The traditional lead monitoring programs test for lead in the blood (for example, the acceptance test shooters at manufacturing plants), but research indicates that the lead is bound into bone and is a health risk even though serum levels are low. The result can be heart or brain damage. Prevention is the better case.

I realize some are hostile to things like safety and health, but my opinion is our Soldiers and civilians have enough to worry about without also being poisoned or having their families poisoned as well.

This doesn't mean it's easy. As some saw with the new Norwegian Army lead-free ammo, shooters got copper poisoning.

WS6

01-02-10, 20:37

DocGKR

01-03-10, 02:47

Jack-O

01-03-10, 12:29

I talked with a owner of the hunting shack munitions manufacturing plant about lead poisoning and contamination. They obviously work around lead and brass all day every day, and would seem to be at the highest risk.

They do annual or bi-annual testing to see if blood lead levels rise. He's 36 now and has been around the plant his whole life literally. he says since they have been monitoring (iirc 15years or so) that NO-ONE has ever had a rise in blood lead levels as a result of handling, loading or shooting the ammo they make there.

that should tell you something about non-aerosolized lead.

He does say that even tho they get this nasty black dust on everything, that simple hand washing before you eat is the key to preventing any problems. No special soaps are used either.

WS6

01-03-10, 12:32

Cwolf88

01-03-10, 12:57

1. The risk in quoting death statistics in any issue is that 300m folks generate a lot of big numbers. No question that folks kill themselves by both action (smoking, eating fried lard, etc.) and inaction (not exercising, not getting health screenings, etc.). Far more young males are killed and injured in cars, suicides, etc. than in going to war.

2. Logically, folks smoking and Soldiers and their families getting lead poisoning are separate issues. The key issue in occupational exposure is they are required to shoot, therefore the burden of prevention goes on the Government. When I visited a civilian contract gun manufacturing facility, they were simply rotating their shooters with high lead levels out and back.

2. I agree moving to lead-free primers and TMJ are good steps (as well as downdraft ventilation in indoor ranges, decontaminating outdoor ranges, etc.). The array of counter-measures would vary by risk and exposure. I'm not defending early lead-free ammo designs (I pointed out the Norwegian problems).

3. Water pollution can take many forms, but all I get to see are the briefings. A lot of Government work does not get published in journals.

Dialogue is good. You are right; SOCOM and the Navy Surface Warfare Center folks are doing great work with highly effective innovations. Although after reading their briefing on the 20mm, I'm glad I'm not the guy that gets to shoot it.

:)

Cwolf88

01-04-10, 18:52

DOD is required by federal law and Executive Order to reduce its' toxic pollutants.

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 required the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and maintain a publicly accessible toxic chemical database. The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Report provides information about toxic chemicals released into the environment or transferred off-site from a facility.

Executive Order 13148 requires each Govt agency to reduce its reported TRI releases and off-site transfers of toxic chemicals for treatment and disposal by 10 percent annually, or by 40 percent overall by December 31, 2006. The E.O. establishes 2001 as the baseline year for reduction goals. The 40 percent reduction is on top of the 50 percent reduction DoD achieved by 1999, under E.O 12856, “Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements.”

For example, in 2003, DOD reported 1,340,277 pounds of lead and 1,562,890 pounds of lead compounds. Overall, due to wartime requirements, these represent significant increases over 2001 (the baseline year) and I'm sure 2009-2010 are even higher.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has initiated the Green Bullets program in an effort to eliminate the use of hazardous materials, including heavy metals and organic solvents, in small-caliber ammunition manufacturing processes, as well as in the ammunition itself. This initiative is led by the U.S. Army's Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center (ARDEC) and encompasses all environmental aspects of small-caliber ammunition, from 5.56 mm through 0.50 caliber. Over 400 million units in this size range are produced each year in the U.S. (higher now; I think annual small arms production is now at 1B). Elimination of the hazardous materials that constitute small-caliber ammunition could result in production cost reductions totaling several million dollars per year. Several alternatives to lead in primers and projectile slugs are being evaluated, including bismuth, molybdenum, tungsten, steel/iron, and copper. Other benefits of lead-free ammunition include:

• Elimination of indoor range lead contamination;
• Elimination of adverse effects on outdoor ecosystems and reduced costs of any cleanups;
• Reduction of ammunition production costs; and
• Reduction of exposure risks to users and manufacturing personnel.

Of course, even if the law did not require it, protecting Soldiers and their families is cost-effective (e.g. we have spent $Bs on IBA alone). It costs over $57,000 to recruit and train the average Soldier; each death costs $250,000 to start.

The M855 Lead Free Slug (M855 LFS)(once it passes acceptance tests) will eliminate ~ 2,000 metric tons of lead from the environment, allow use of training ranges with lead restrictions, and will remove lead hazard from manufacturing environment. The 62 grain bullet is a somewhat longer bullet and will initially be phosphate coated steel, but later production will have a protective epoxy/painted tip. Optimized for the M4 with low flash propellant, more lethal, and increases penetration at longer ranges.

Primary lead contamination mechanisms:

Airborne Particulate Lead - Very small lead particles can become airborne if wind, foot traffic, or maintenance activities disturb contaminated soil. Airborne particles smaller than 10 microns (Sincero, 1996) can be inhaled, and fine particles smaller than 250 microns in diameter can be incidentally ingested (Duggan, 1985). Soil particles smaller than 100 to 200 microns are likely to be ingested because fine particles adhere to skin while larger particles are easily brushed off. Intake of lead through inhalation is usually small (Duggan, 1985). Note: there are a variety of studies showing secondary lead contamination (lead transferred to other people).

Storm Water Runoff and Erosion - Storm water runoff has the potential to erode and transport contaminated soil and lead particles away from the normal confines of a firing range. Rainfall intensity, ground slope, soil type, and obstructions such as vegetation and fabricated structures will influence the potential transport of lead away from the range. Once the contaminated soil is transported beyond the firing range's boundary, additional environmental impact (e.g., bioaccumulation or bioconcentration) and human exposure could occur.

Dissolved Lead in Groundwater/Surface Water - At a neutral pH, lead is relatively insoluble. As water becomes more acidic (decreasing pH), lead solubility tends to increase. When storm water (normally slightly acidic) comes in contact with lead contaminated soil, the lead can be dissolved into the water and transported to nearby groundwater or surface water. If sufficient lead is mobilized, environmental receptors can be affected and risk to human health could occur if these sources are used for drinking water. When groundwater is more than 10 feet below ground surface, it is generally not affected by leaching of lead from soil. However, some regulatory agencies consider dissolved concentrations of lead above 15 micrograms per liter (parts per billion) a potential health concern (Reference: Appendix A: National Primary Drinking Water Standards, Action Level for Lead, 1997.) As with most metals, lead, antimony, copper, and zinc tend to adhere to soil grains and organic material and remain "fixed" in shallow soils.

If a soil sample, when subject to the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), produces a result in excess of the regulatory limit for lead (5 milligrams per liter (parts per million), then the waste represented by the sample becomes a characteristic hazardous waste due its leachable lead concentration and would be subject to RCRA regulation as a hazardous waste for disposal purposes. As the pH of the lead-containing soil approaches 7 (neutral) or higher (alkaline), its potential for leaching lead above 5 ppm during TCLP testing is lowered. In addition to pH, other important variables affecting the potential for leaching lead from soil samples during TCLP testing are grain size and whether the lead is in elemental form or weathered.

In other words, each range would have its own risk-based assessment.

I hope I've answered your questions. I didn't say this would be easy. There are clearly technological hurdles to overcome.

Heavy Metal

01-04-10, 20:19

Aerosolized lead from primers and exposed lead on bullet bases is indeed a problem. Of course the solution is to use lead free primers and OTM style projectiles without exposed lead bases. I have yet to see a good study showing that, "lead in berms percolates through the soil into the water table". Do you have one you wish to reference? On the other hand, as previously posted, the Army's lead-free "green" ammo programs have clearly resulted in significant toxic contamination issues...

It won't affect the water table unless the soil is highly acidic and can reduce the lead into a soluable form.

Lead in nature tends to become covered in an oxide coating and become immobile and less bioavailable. There are soil additives that can be used to further limit the bioavailabilty of lead.

I have been thinking about writing an article on lead management for range operators and submitting it for publication when time permits. I do know a bit about this subject from my previous job.

Gutshot John

01-05-10, 07:53

The problem with lead in the soil is that it has NADA to do with science and fact.

It's a convenient way for state environmental agencies to shut down clubs and other ranges if they don't have a "lead monitoring program".

Fast Eddie Rendell can get you up to speed.

Cwolf88

01-05-10, 12:07

DODIC AB49, 5.56mm Ball, Carbine, Barrier MK 318 MOD 0

DODIC AB50, 7.62mm Ball, Rifle, Barrier MK 319 MOD 0

On contract and in the field. Optimized for Carbine. Accurate, low flash, and lethal.

5.56 is getting 2,900 fps out of the 14 in barrel (MK 16 SCAR-L), and

the 7.62 is also 2,900 fps out of the 16 in barrel (MK 17 SCAR-H).

These pass legal because they don't expand or fragment. The tip changes the bullet balance so all energy is expended in the target.
3935
Hooray for Special Operations Cmd and Nav Sur Warfare Ctr.

Cwolf88

01-05-10, 13:35

The assumption hx has been that lead in the blood just goes away and folks then return to the job.

High levels of lead in bone hard on the heart
Tue Sep 8, 2009 5:24pm EDT
By Anne Harding
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Lots of lead in the bones may make for an unhealthy heart, new research suggests.

Older men with the highest levels of the metal in their bones were more than twice as likely to die over the study's 9-year follow-up than their peers with the lowest bone lead levels, while their risk of dying from heart-related causes was nearly six times greater, Dr. Marc G. Weisskopf of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and his colleagues found.

"This is yet another prod to try and raise the issue of bone lead being at least as important to monitor as blood lead," Weisskopf told Reuters Health. He pointed out that US occupational standards for lead exposure are currently based on measuring blood levels, which can return to normal a few months after exposure ends. Bone lead, on the other hand, can show exposure that happened years or even decades ago.

"What our work is suggesting is that that may not tell the whole story," he added. "Just because someone's blood lead level has dropped down doesn't mean they are necessarily safe or free from these concerns."

While suggestions that lead might be bad for the heart date back at least to Hippocrates, Weisskopf and his team note in the journal Circulation, the relationship between exposure to the toxic metal and heart health is still poorly understood. However, they add, high levels of blood lead have been tied to increased risk of death from many causes.

In the current study, the researchers looked at 868 men participating in a long-term study of aging. Their average age was about 67. Weisskopf and his colleagues tested levels of lead in the men's kneecaps and in their shin bones.

During follow-up, 241 of the men died. Those who ranked in the top third based on their bone lead levels were 2.52 times more likely to die, and 5.63 times more likely to die from heart-related causes, than men with the lowest levels.

Once the researchers adjusted for age, smoking, and race, they found that the men with the highest bone lead levels were more than eight times as likely as those with the least lead in their bones to die of ischemic heart disease caused by blocked arteries.

While it's not clear how lead might hurt the heart, Weisskopf noted that there are many plausible mechanisms; it could damage the "autonomic" nervous system, which controls the heart; boost blood pressure; or harm heart tissue.

Measuring bone lead could one day prove useful for identifying people at increased risk of heart disease, Weisskopf noted, but at present testing is cumbersome and expensive -- and it's very difficult to take bone samples.

While people in the United States are exposed to far less lead than they used to be, thanks to the phasing out of leaded gasoline and lead paint, people in many other parts of the world still face heavy exposure to the toxic metal, the researcher said.

The current findings may help explain why heart-related deaths are declining in developed nations, but is on the rise in some developing countries, he and his colleagues say.

SOURCE: Circulation, September 22, 2009.

DocGKR

01-05-10, 14:49

"These pass legal because they don't expand or fragment. The tip changes the bullet balance so all energy is expended in the target."

Absolutely NOT correct in your description of the TOTM/SOST wounding mechanism. Oh, and the Mk318 Mod0 and Mk319 Mod0 have lead cores...

----------

Certainly exposure to lead sources as noted in the article you posted ("High levels of lead in bone hard on the heart") are a health issue, but the article describes exposures from leaded gasoline and lead paint, not shooting. If launched using lead free primers, how exactly are lead core, jacketed OTM projectiles supposedly causing lead toxicity to shooters? For that matter, I am unable to find any studies that conclusively demonstrate any type of environmental water toxicity from such projectiles.

On the other hand, to date, the Army's "green" bullet program has been a BIG failure. As described earlier in this thread, the Army's first very expensive attempt at environmentally friendly ammo, the tungsten-nylon core "green" M855 ammunition was poorly conceived, badly implemented, did not work, and has turned out to be highly toxic:

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080911/NEWS/809110313

http://archive.capecodonline.com/special/tungsten/howtungsten17.htm

http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/library/technicalreports/TR-07-5.pdf

The more recent bismuth-tin core M855 LFS does NOT work as advertised and has been another giant FAILURE.

-----------

We dig lead out of the ground and then return the lead to where it came from when shooting projectiles into the earth.

Shooting lead core projectiles is just a form or recycling.

Jaws

01-05-10, 17:14

It costs over $57,000 to recruit and train the average Soldier; each death costs $250,000 to start.

Then why not use this reason to give the troops a more letal cartridge instead?
I'm sure a lot more soldiers died because the bad guy they shot was able to shoot back, than from "lead poisoning".

My neighbour carried a bullet in his chest, since ww2, untill he died at 87.....

Marcus L.

01-05-10, 18:00

Unfortunately working for the DOI the powers that be have put this ridiculous lead free ammo restriction on us as well. We are required to qualify and train with green ammo only, and then use leaded ammo for duty. Before, we used to only train and qualify with our duty ammo which was either Winchester RTs, Speer GDs, Remington GS, or Federal HSTs.

This decision was protested by probably 90% of the firearms instructors in the DOI for several reasons:

1) There has been no evidence that lead cored ammunition, unless using a FMJ exposed lead backing shows any increase in lead in the body. All LE with the DOI have a full medical exam with blood work every 1-3 years and no abnormal levels of lead have been observed with all of the firearms instructors that have voluntarily made their blood results available. There were some higher levels of lead in the guys that did a lot of shooting on their own with other ammo types such as FMJ(exposed lead backing), casted bullets, surplus ammo,....etc.

2) Duty ammunition cannot be cycled out during qualification. Legally, old ammunition must be desposed of instead of just firing it during training.......such a waste.

3) There was no legal way to determine if duty ammo functioned in each weapon properly and if each weapon was sighted in and grouping properly.

The best that we got out of the protest was that we can now have one qualification per year to cycle out old duty ammo.

With modern JHP designs that are either bonded, or rolled from the rear there is no exposed lead to the shooter from the bullet unless they go and fondle the bullet after they find it on the berm. It seems to me that the big culprit is from leaded primers.

Heavy Metal

01-05-10, 21:58

I had a Heavy Metal Profile(ha!) done with my annual physical this past spring. I need to call HQ and get a copy of the results.

I can tell you people one thing for sure. After you pick up brass, decon. Don't pick up brass in your hat. Wear gloves and decon after cleaining your weapon, there is trace lead in the firing residue.

Clean your shoes and your rangewear from time to time.

Keep a bottle of handi-wipes in your rangebag. Don't eat unless you first throughly clean your hands if you ahve been shooting.

Cwolf88

01-08-10, 13:58

Gary,

I'm not defending the EPA or even the Army. I am not defending lead-free ammo; I am merely explaining the current system. There are a series of Best Mgmt Practices to minimize lead contamination.

A prudent shooter who shoots a lot, especially in indoor ranges, should be aware of lead risks to both himself and his family and rational counter-measures. It is the individual's choice (free will) to do as he/she wishes. Lead recycling out of ranges simply increases the cost (Army Magazine >> Army Magazine Archive >> ARMY Magazine - May 2002 >> How Much Does a Bullet Cost?).

Lead poisoning is insidious in that you don't turn yellow and start foaming at the mouth. In some cases, shooters with high serum lead levels are simply rotated out until the levels drop, then are returned to work. Which was the point of the article; lead is bound in bone and poses a risk later on. As I travel with military, they are stopped in the airports for positive swab or air puff tests with washed hands and washed uniforms (realizing the test isn't for lead).

Most of the lead studies are on painters, battery workers, etc. because those are large industries with big population samples. The contamination mechanisms apply regardless of the source.

I agree lead-free primers and TMJ are good interim solutions.

Naval Surface Warfare Ctr's JAG review was based on the bullet's not being designed to expand or fragment (although I agree with you those various 18th century agreements are silly) which is a definitional issue, not a description of how the bullets may actually perform. The ideal bullet expends all of its energy in the target whether by upsetting, tumbling, expanding, or fragmenting, etc.

Few folks (not you) understand anatomy (witness the varies of targets with various kill zone rules) and how hollow much of the body is. Few folks are hunters. A deer shot with a 385 grain slug from a 12 gauge 3" magnum at 100 yards penetrating stem to stern can still run away. Setting aside from the yaw issue with differential bullet performance, one recent military test on moving targets showed few could hit the target (no surprise since we train KD stationary targets mostly); yet most swore they had hit it.

One problem is that folks have hundreds of hours of movie/TV watching where all the bad guys instantly die upon being shot, usually knocked 5-6 feet backwards when hit. In the real world, humans can be quite difficult to kill. Pat Rogers describes shooting a bad guy 12 times and finding the guy alive later at his house (at that point I'd be looking for garlic-treated silver bullets with crosses). Or look at the Miami shoot-out.

Dialogue is good. Happy New Year. :)

Cwolf88

01-08-10, 14:12

Then why not use this reason to give the troops a more letal cartridge instead?
I'm sure a lot more soldiers died because the bad guy they shot was able to shoot back, than from "lead poisoning".

My neighbour carried a bullet in his chest, since ww2, untill he died at 87.....

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The new Mk 318-319ammo is more lethal. The reality is that killing Bad Guys is a system function (high fidelity training, sights, ammo, etc.). It is also true that one bullet anywhere in the body will not instantly kill everybody and knock them backwards 5 feet (unless you're in the movies).

The prevention of friendly lead poisoning in training is a separate issue. The highest risk groups are probably range personnel and folks who shoot a lot, especially in indoor ranges, who do not wash their hands and clothing.

DocGKR

01-08-10, 15:03

Cwolf88--thanks for the additional info, sounds like we are all on the same page.

DocGKR

02-06-10, 21:37

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/p4013coll3&CISOPTR=2515&filename=2516.pdf#search=%22adopt%22

DocGKR

02-12-10, 13:05

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/02/marine_SOST_ammo_021510w/

MARINE CORPS TIMES

February 15, 2010

The ‘barrier blind’ bullet--SOST rounds to replace M855 in Afghanistan

By Dan Lamothe

The Marine Corps is dropping its conventional 5.56mm ammunition in Afghanistan in favor of new deadlier, more accurate rifle rounds, and could field them at any time.

The open-tipped rounds until now have been available only to Special Operations Command troops. The first 200,000 5.56mm Special Operations Science and Technology rounds are already downrange with Marine Expeditionary Brigade–Afghanistan, said Brig. Gen. Michael Brogan, commander of Marine Corps Systems Command. Commonly known as “SOST” rounds, they were legally cleared for Marine use by the Pentagon in late-January, according to Navy Department documents obtained by Marine Corps Times.

SOCOM developed the new rounds for use with the Special Operations Force Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR, which needed a more accurate bullet because its short barrel, which at 13.8 inches, is less than an inch shorter than the M4 carbine’s. Using an open-tip match round design common with some sniper ammunition, SOST rounds are designed to be “barrier blind,” meaning they stay on target better than existing M855 rounds after penetrating windshields, car doors and other objects.

Compared to the M855, SOST rounds also stay on target longer in open air and have increased stopping power through “consistent, rapid fragmentation which shortens the time required to cause incapacitation of enemy combatants,” according to Navy Department documents. At 62 grains, they weigh about the same as most NATO rounds, have a typical lead core with a solid copper shank and are considered a variation of Federal Cartridge Co.’s Federal Trophy Bonded Bear Claw round, which was developed for big-game hunting and is touted in a company news release for its ability to crush bone.

The Corps purchased a “couple million” SOST rounds as part of a joint $6 million, 10.4-million-round buy in September — enough to last the service several months in Afghanistan, Brogan said. Navy Department documents say the Pentagon will launch a competition worth up to $400 million this spring for more SOST ammunition. “This round was really intended to be used in a weapon with a shorter barrel, their SCAR car¬bines,” Brogan said. “But because of its blind-to-barrier performance, its accuracy improvements and its reduced muzzle flash, those are attractive things that make it also useful to general purpose forces like the Marine Corps and Army.”

M855 problems
The standard Marine round, the M855, was developed in the 1970s and approved as an official NATO round in 1980. In recent years, however, it has been the subject of widespread criticism from troops, who question whether it has enough punch to stop oncoming enemies.

In 2002, shortcomings in the M855’s performance were detailed in a report by Naval Surface War fare Center Crane, Ind., according to Navy Department documents. Additional testing showed shortcomings in 2005. The Pentagon issued a request to industry for improved ammunition the following year. Federal Cartridge was the only company to respond.

Brogan said the Corps has no plans to remove the M855 from the service’s inventory at this time. However, the service has determined it “does not meet USMC performance requirements” in an operational environment in which insurgents often lack personal body armor, but engage troops through “intermediate barriers” such as windshields and car doors at security check points, according to a Jan. 25 Navy Department document clearing Marines to use the SOST round.

The document, signed by J.R. Crisfield, director of the Navy Department International and Operational Law Division, is clear on the recommended course of action for the 5.56mm SOST round, formally known as MK318 MOD0 enhanced 5.56mm ammunition.

“Based on the significantly improved performance of the MK318 MOD0 over the M855 against virtually every anticipated target array in Afghanistan and similar combat environments where increased accuracy, better effects behind automobile glass and doors, consistent terminal performance and reduced muzzle flash are critical to mission accomplishment, USMC would treat the MK318 MOD0 as its new 5.56mm standard issue cartridge,” Crisfield wrote.

The original plan called for the SOST round to be used specifically within the M4 carbine, which has a 14½ -inch barrel and is used by tens of thousands of Marines in military occupational specialties such as motor vehicle operator where the M16A4’s longer barrel can be cumbersome. Given its benefits, however, Marine officials decided also to adopt SOST for the M16A4, which has a 20-inch bar rel and is used by most of the infantry.

Incorporating ‘SOST’
In addition to operational benefits, SOST rounds have similar ballistics to the M855 round, meaning Marines will not have to adjust to using the new ammo, even though it is more accurate.

“It does not require us to change our training,” Brogan said. “We don’t have to change our aim points or modify our training curriculum. We can train just as we have always trained with the 855 round, so right now, there is no plan to completely remove the 855 from inventory.”
Marine officials in Afghanistan could not be reached for comment, but Brogan said commanders with MEB-A are authorized to issue SOST ammo to any subordinate command. Only one major Marine 5.56mm weapon system down-range will not use SOST: the M249 squad automatic weapon. Though the new rounds fit the SAW, they are not currently produced in the linked fashion commonly employed with the light machine gun, Brogan said.

SOCOM first fielded the SOST round in April, said Air Force Maj. Wesley Ticer, a spokesman for the command. It also fielded a cousin — MK319 MOD0 enhanced 7.62mm SOST ammo — designed for use with the SCAR-Heavy, a powerful 7.62mm battle rifle. SOCOM uses both kinds of ammunition in all of its geographic combatant commands, Ticer said.

The Corps has no plans to buy 7.62mm SOST ammunition, but that could change if operational commanders or infantry requirements officers call for it in the future, Brogan said.

It is uncertain how long the Corps will field the SOST round. Marine officials said last summer that they took interest in it after the M855A1 lead-free slug in development by the Army experienced problems during testing, but Brogan said the service is still interested in the environmentally friendly round if it is effective. Marine officials also want to see if the price of the SOST round drops once in mass production. The price of an individual round was not available, but Brogan said SOST ammo is more expensive than current M855 rounds.

“We have to wait and see what happens with the Army’s 855LFS round,” he said. “We also have to get very good cost estimates of where these (SOST) rounds end up in full-rate, or serial production. Because if it truly is going to remain more expensive, then we would not want to buy that round for all of our training applications.”

Legal concerns
Before the SOST round could be fielded by the Corps, it had to clear a legal hurdle: Approval that it met international law of war standards.

The process is standard for new weapons and weapons systems, but it took on added significance because of the bullet’s design. Open-tip bullets have been approved for use by U.S. forces for decades, but are sometimes confused with hollow-point rounds, which expand in human tissue after impact, causing unnecessary suffering, according to widely accepted international treaties signed following the Hague peace conventions held in the Nether- lands in 1899 and 1907.

“We need to be very clear in drawing this distinction: This is not a hollow-point round, which is not permitted,” Brogan said. “It has been through law of land warfare review and has passed that review so that it meets the criteria of not causing unnecessary pain and suffering.”

The open-tip/hollow-point dilemma has been addressed several times by the military, including in 1990, when the chief of the Judge Advocate General International Law Branch, now-retired Marine Col. W. Hays Parks, advised that the open-tip M852 Sierra MatchKing round preferred by snipers met international law requirements. The round was kept in the field.

In a 3,000-word memorandum to Army Special Operations Command, Parks said “unnecessary suffering” and “superfluous injury” have not been formally defined, leaving the U.S. with a “balancing test” it must conduct to assess whether the usage of each kind of rifle round is justified.

“The test is not easily applied,” Parks said. “For this reason, the degree of ‘superfluous injury’ must ... outweigh substantially the military necessity for the weapon system or projectile.”

John Cerone, an expert in the law of armed conflict and professor at the New England School of Law, said the military’s interpretation of international law is widely accepted. It is understood that weapons cause pain in war, and as long as there is a strategic military reason for their employment, they typically meet international guidelines, he said.

“In order to fall within the prohibition, a weapon has to be designed to cause unnecessary suffering,” he said.

Sixteen years after Parks issued his memo, an Army unit in Iraq temporarily banned the open-tip M118 long-range used by snipers after a JAG officer mistook it for hollow-tip ammunition, according to a 2006 Washington Times report. The decision was over- turned when other Army officials were alerted.

http://www.tridentconcepts.com/alumni/Portals/0/NTForums_Attach/1212405130471.jpg

sgalbra76

02-12-10, 13:22

Dr. Roberts,

With the increasing adoption of barrier blind 5.56 ammo, has there been more of a trend away from the 6.8 SPC in favor of just improving the 5.56? Just curious on whether you think that the 6.8 will see any increase in military service use or if it looks like it will fade away.

I've thought about getting a 6.8, but until I can get some affordable training ammo I won't make the investment. At $.90 a shot for 6.8 SPC training ammo, I can get .308 for only $.30 a shot. Until that price can come down to at least $.50 a shot, I'll stick with 5.56.

ColdDeadHands

02-12-10, 14:28

The process is standard for new weapons and weapons systems, but it took on added significance because of the bullet’s design. Open-tip bullets have been approved for use by U.S. forces for decades, but are sometimes confused with hollow-point rounds, which expand in human tissue after impact, causing unnecessary suffering, according to widely accepted international treaties signed following the Hague peace conventions held in the Nether- lands in 1899 and 1907.
yeah, we should be really kind to all those mother****ers who want to kill us. It's so dumb it's almost funny....

vicious_cb

02-12-10, 15:31

Any idea how mk318 compares to the 75/77gr OTMs?

DocGKR

02-12-10, 15:44

Yes, it is much better. If I were going into combat armed with a 5.56 mm carbine, I'd want to be running the Mk318.

Failure2Stop

02-12-10, 18:42

Yes, it is much better. If I were going into combat armed with a 5.56 mm carbine, I'd want to be running the Mk318.

That makes two of us Doc.

vicious_cb

02-12-10, 20:01

I dont quite understand the construction. It said the bullet was based on the TBBC which is a bonded bullet yet the article mentions "consistent, rapid fragmentation" leading me to believe its not bonded. How does it achieve fragmentation and barrier penetration?

DocGKR

02-13-10, 03:21

The Mk318 Mod0 type of SOST/TOTM is a non-bonded version of the projectile--please see the other comments about this round, as well as review the cross-section in the comments and links above.

.45fmjoe

02-13-10, 15:03

Doc, what happened to the brown tipped 70gr all copper round (presumably the Barnes TSX?) that was supposed to be the round of choice for short barreled carbines?

Which do you think would be the better choice?

Leatherneck556

02-14-10, 04:24

Soooo... does Federal/ATK/Lake City/whoever produce a version of this that I can buy for personal use? I'm sure the answer is no, but I figure it's worth asking about.

DocGKR

02-16-10, 11:21

When either DOD or ATK choose to release gel pic's into the public domain, then they will be available.

Chieftain

02-18-10, 17:19

At this time, is there any civilian equivalent to the MK318?

Thank you.

Fred

CheckMyBrain

02-20-10, 16:24

Shawn Dodson

02-22-10, 14:18

sgalbra76

02-22-10, 14:45

Mk318 - it's just another band-aid for an inadequate general-purpose infantry cartridge.

It's a start. Perhaps it'll set the precedence in which USMC may one day declare "5.56x45mm does not meet USMC performance requirements."

I still ask the question:

Is there any continued or increased interest in the 6.8 SPC with the military? It "seems" to be losing steam overall. If not, is there a 5.56 alternative that is gaining traction?

decodeddiesel

02-22-10, 15:08

I still ask the question:

Is there any continued or increased interest in the 6.8 SPC with the military? It "seems" to be losing steam overall. If not, is there a 5.56 alternative that is gaining traction?

6.8 is dead for a number of reasons, some good some not.

As of right now as far as I know (and I am fairly plugged in with this sort of thing) there is no outstanding 5.56 alternative at this time.

Chieftain

02-22-10, 16:50

I don't understand why this specific weapon system, with such a terrible history, still exists. If our pilots had to fly an aircraft this suspect, they would replace it and do.

From it's very inception, this POS has been nothing but death and pain for the troops on the line. Today thankfully, it only raises it's head occasionally, but often enough that it still comes up.

AS long as we were fighting close up in MOUT type scenarios of Iraq, we could get by.

But as we move deeper into Afghanistan, the need for a competent rifle system and cartridge is starting to show up, AGAIN.

Let us not be constrained by the hole dimensions in the magwell of the present rifle. Of the new era, Post McNamara, though the life and welfare of the troops doesn't seem to figure into small arms usage. So I don't really hold out much hope.

I like my SCAR but let's get a cartridge that works better in every sense for combat. We could use the SCAR H, not necessarily in 7.62 NATO, but the hole in the receiver will accept most anything we would create or choose.

Who makes the rifle doesn't really matter. Of course I would prefer an American company, but that limits who is left to do it.

We need a new cartridge, and the present system will probably not work with it, so another system will be necessary. All I know for sure is that it will have a piston system.

That's it, let's suck it up and Just DO IT.

Go figure.

Fred

rsilvers

02-22-10, 19:49

SOCom developed the new rounds for use with the Special Operations Force Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR, which needed a more accurate bullet because its short barrel, at 13.8 inches, is less than an inch shorter than the M4 carbine’s

The barrel is less than an inch shorter than an M4 so it needs a more accurate bullet? What does he mean?

200RNL

02-23-10, 00:24

6.8 is dead for a number of reasons, some good some not.
The main reason is probably money.

Barring any unforseen circumstances, the present wars are probably coming to a conclusion in the near future.

After that, the rifle and cartridge debate will die out and the services will be content with what they have.

In peace time, especially during our present fiscal crisis, the politicians won't give the military millions of dollars for a different system when the present rifle and caliber is considered adequate in their eyes.

rsilvers

02-23-10, 14:59

Individual weapons are so much less expensive than aircraft. There is plenty of room in the budget for it if they wanted it.

DocGKR

03-09-10, 15:57

http://www.military.com/news/article/army-paper-prompts-look-at-combat-gear.html?col=1186032325324

Army Paper Prompts Look at Combat Gear
March 03, 2010
Military.com|by Christian Lowe

An obscure graduate school paper by an Army major that took the service to task over poorly training and equipping Soldiers for the fight in Afghanistan is causing quite a stir amid key service officials.

Special Operations Command has been picking the paper's conclusions apart with a fine-tooth comb. It is now required reading for Army weapons experts, and the service's top gear buyer has read it cover-to-cover.

But the paper's conclusions are causing some heartburn.

"I've read it. It's a very good paper. But he did take things out of context in a couple of places," said Col. Doug Tamilio, program manager for Soldier weapons. "He makes some conclusions that aren't substantiated with the documents he's got."

In a monograph titled "Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half Kilometer," Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, an infantry officer attending the elite Army School for Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, wrote that the Army undertrained and underequipped its front-line units to battle insurgent forces over long ranges in mountainous terrain.

Read Maj. Ehrhart's Paper Here: http://www.scribd.com/full/27765477?access_key=key-25o3hl0i8xdi4f5zo2tb

Debate over the study comes amid a series of major reviews within the service over improvements to the M4 rifle, a possible replacement for the Soldier's basic carbine, and radical changes to the equipment used by troops in Afghanistan, including a new camouflage combat uniform that better matches that country's varied terrain.

"We want to provide that squad a more modular capability specific to that theater," said Brig. Gen. Mark Fuller, the Army's top weapons buyer. "But do we want to do that across the whole Army? Maybe not."

Ehrhart wrote that despite the fact that 50 percent of Army engagements in Afghanistan occur with the enemy attacking at 300 meters or beyond, the majority of Soldiers are trained to fire their M4 carbines accurately to 200 meters, and more than 80 percent of Joes in an infantry company are equipped with weapons that can't touch the enemy beyond that range.

The enemy in Afghanistan, Ehrhart writes, "engages United States forces from high ground with medium and heavy weapons, often including mortars, knowing that we are restricted by our equipment limitations and the inability of our overburdened soldiers to maneuver at elevations exceeding 6000 feet."

The weapon systems that can engage the enemy in Afghanistan effectively beyond 200 meters "represent 19 percent of the company's firepower," he adds. "This is unacceptable."

Military.com contacted Ehrhart, who is now deployed to Iraq, via e-mail, but he was unable to respond to questions about the report by post time.

Army officials say they read the critique loud and clear and claim efforts are ongoing to re-evaluate basic rifle training and other tactics to better meet the Afghan threat. The service's weapons experts are also quick to point out that efforts are being made to arm Soldiers with more firepower that can reach out and touch insurgents in the Afghan hills.

Tamilio noted that the Army is in the midst of equipping each infantry squad with two EBR-14 systems --- modified M14 7.62mm rifles --- so more Soldiers will have the range and stopping power to engage the enemy with direct fire. Officials are also scouring the weapons lockers of special operations units to see if some of their firepower could be fielded to general purpose units to boost their capabilities.

But officials are reluctant to equip units with too many weapons that meet long-range needs at the expense of the close-range capability. Tamilio said the 5.56mm M4 worked well in the close-range urban fights of Iraq, but Afghanistan is proving the need for more options with heavier rounds.

Fuller added that his team has offered three Army brigades deploying to Afghanistan as part of the "surge" additional firepower for their operations, including the special operations M4A1 that can fire in full-auto mode and new long-range scopes.

"I can't give it to the whole Army," he explained. "But I can field an increased capability so you can have a little more kit in your kit bag to adapt to that environment."

© Copyright 2008 Military.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

DocGKR

03-09-10, 15:57

http://armytimes.va.newsmemory.com/default.php?token=ccc1e2b5ff4cd0e6bfad97a3b3562e08&pSetup=armytimes

Army Times, 08 March 2010

Deadlier round DENIED
Push for lead-free slug means soldiers won’t get Marines’ new 5.56 ammo

By Matthew Cox
mcox@militarytimes.com

Special Operations Command and now the Marine Corps are fielding a deadlier 5.56mm round, but the Army says soldiers can’t have it. Instead, the service is holding on to its dream of environmentally friendly ammunition.

Army ammunition officials are on their third attempt at redesigning the Cold War-era M855 5.56mm round by adding a better-performing, lead-free bullet. The service had to halt the M855A1 Lead-Free Slug program in July when the new bullet failed to perform under high temperatures. The setback delayed fielding by nearly a year.

The newest version of the green round is in the live-fire test phase and Army officials said they are confident it will be ready for combat use by June.

The Marine Corps, however, doesn’t share this confidence. The Corps has dropped its plans to field the Army’s M855A1 and approved the new SOST round for Marines to use in Afghanistan. SOST, short for Special Operations Science and Technology, is SOCOM’s enhanced 5.56mm round. It isn’t green, but it is deadlier than the current M855 round and it’s available now, Marine officials say.

The Corps’ decision to purchase about 2 million SOST rounds in September illustrates the growing frustration with the M855’s performance on the modern battlefield.

The M855 was developed in the 1970s and approved as an official NATO round in 1980. In recent years, troops have widely criticized it. They complain it is ineffective against barriers such as car wind- shields and often travels right through unarmored insurgents, with less than lethal effects.

Jason Gillis, a former Army staff sergeant, first witnessed the M855’s shortcomings in 2004 on the streets of Baghdad. He was a squad leader with 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, on patrol when a vehicle began speeding toward his unit.

After several warnings, “both of our M249s opened up instantly, forming a crisscross pattern of tracer that met at the vehicles engine compartment and wind- shield. Within seconds, riflemen and grenadiers were executing magazine changes while the vehicle kept rolling and finally stopped 10 meters from my lead troops,” Gillis recalled in an e-mail to Army Times. He is now a free-lance writer who often focuses on military small-arms issues.

“Assuming the driver was most likely riddled beyond recognition, we were all astounded to see the driver emerge from the vehicle completely unscathed,” Gillis wrote. “Closer inspection revealed that the M855 ammunition had failed to effectively penetrate the vehicle’s windshield despite the fact over 400 rounds were expended at extremely close range and on target.”

Other soldiers say they like the M855 because it’s lightweight, but wish it had more punch.

“The idea of being able to carry 210 rounds is quickly overshadowed by the fact that it takes more than one and even more than two rounds to drop the enemy,” Staff Sgt. Charles Kouri, 82nd Air- borne Division, told Army Times.

[b]Army going ‘green’
Army officials acknowledged that the M855 “has not been providing the ‘stopping power’ the user would like at engagement ranges less than 150 yards,” according to a June 17, 2005, Project Manager Maneuver Ammunition briefing.

Ballistics experts maintain, however, that no bullet is perfect and that it is highly unlikely any bullet will cause an enemy to drop every time after just one shot.
“There is not a bullet in this world that will do that,” said Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research who also served in the Vietnam War as a combat surgeon. “Even if you take the guy’s heart apart, he can still shoot back at you for 15 seconds because he’s still got enough oxygen in the blood in his brain to do it.”

Still, the Army pushed forward with two priorities: to find ammo that performs better and is also lead-free. As part of a larger effort to study bullet lethality, the Army began revamping its green bullet program, an effort that first began in 1996.

The first attempt featured a tungsten-nylon blend that didn’t perform well and proved to be almost as harmful to the environment as lead.

Another attempt, with the M855A1 LFS, appeared to be the solution. The new round was made of a bismuth-tin alloy with a steel penetrator. Army officials said the M855A1 provided more “consistent performance” than the M855 round and performed better against barriers such as wind- shields and car doors.

The Army has spent about $32 million on the LFS program since fiscal 2007.

The Army had planned to start issuing the first of 20 million M855A1 rounds last August, until an 11th-hour problem surfaced when some of the bullets did not follow their trajectory or intended flight path. The slug proved to be sensitive to heat.

The latest setback led the Army to search for a new lead-free slug material and prompted the Marine Corps, which was interested in the M855A1, to go with SOCOM’s new 5.56mm round instead.

“We put our money toward SOST because of the lead-free failure,” said Chief Warrant Officer-5 Jeffrey Eby, the Corps’ senior gunner. “That lead-free bullet in the last six months just fell apart on them under extreme heat.”

More accurate round
SOST rounds have similar bal- listics to the M855 round, mean- ing combat troops don’t have to adjust to using the new ammo, military officials say.

Using an open-tip match round design common with some sniper ammunition, SOST rounds are designed to stay on target better than existing M855 rounds after penetrating windshields, car doors and other objects.

Compared with the M855, SOST rounds also stay on target longer in open air and have increased stopping power, according to Navy Department documents obtained by Marine Corps Times.

At 62 grains, they weigh about the same as most NATO rounds, have a typical lead core with a solid copper shank and are considered a variation of Federal Cartridge Co.’s Federal Trophy Bonded Bear Claw round, which was developed for big-game hunting and is touted in a company news release for its ability to crush bone.

SOCOM developed the new round, formally known as the MK318 MOD 0, for use with the Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR, which needed a more accurate bullet because its short barrel, at 13.8 inches, is less than an inch shorter than the M4 carbine’s.

SOCOM first fielded the SOST round in April, said Air Force Maj. Wesley Ticer, a spokesman for the command. It also fielded a cousin — MK319 MOD 0 enhanced 7.62mm SOST ammo — designed for use with the SCAR-Heavy, a powerful 7.62mm battle rifle.

SOCOM uses both kinds of ammunition, Ticer said.

The Corps purchased a “couple million” SOST rounds as part of a joint $6 million, 10.4-million round buy in September — enough to last the service several months in Afghanistan, Marine Corps officials said.

Despite the popularity of the SOST, the Army isn’t backing away from its goal to perfect its green M855A1 round.

“SOST is a good round, but SOST is not a lead-free slug,” said Lt. Col. Tom Henthorn, chief of the Small Arms Branch at the Soldier Requirements Division at Fort Benning, Ga.

The Army will continue to develop an environmentally friendly 5.56mm, as well as a lead-free 7.62mm bullet, Henthorn added, “because we care about the environment.”

Small arms training accounts for about 2,000 metric tons of lead going into the environment every year, Army officials say. The Army first began its quest for green ammunition in response to environmental groups that pressured some states to prohibit some National Guard units from using their training ranges.

Run-off from lead-contaminated soil can contaminate water sources that supply communities located near the ranges, environmental groups maintain.

“We do have real reasons why we are doing this,” said Chris Grassano, product manager for Maneuver Ammunition Systems. Grassano, however, did say that the Army does not have a “significant percentage” of training ranges that have been closed because of lead damage to the environment. The latest M855A1 design features a solid copper slug instead of bismuth-tin. During production qualification testing, Army testers will shoot 400,000 rounds of the new version, making the M855A1 “the most tested round we have ever developed,” said Lt. Col. Jeff Woods, product manager for Small and Medium Caliber Ammunition.

The new round addresses the consistency problems of the M855, but Army ballistics officials said “we are not at liberty to compare it to SOST,” Grassano said.

While copper is more expensive than lead, Army officials said they could not provide a cost estimate for the M855A1 compared to the current M855.

If all goes well in testing, the M855A1 will be ready in June in “sufficient quantities to satisfy the needs of theater,” Grassano said. “We are pretty confident that once we get it into soldiers’ hands, they will be satisfied with” the new round.

Staff writer Dan Lamonthe contributed to this report.

Chieftain

03-10-10, 04:09

I think that when, the families of dead and wounded solders find out there was a bullet available and used by other services that may have made a difference in their own solder getting hurt or dead, there will be an out cry like the Army Brass has NEVER imagined.

But I have been saying that for 43 years, since that abomination and it's cartridge was forced on us. I am not advocating going back to the 7.62 NATO as our standard light carbine round. I would like a new round, something along the lines of the 6.8spc or 6.5 Grendel or even better.

And Doc I know you are also advocating for a more effective cartridge too. But short term I hope this new bullet will work well or at least "BETTER" for the Corps.

I Feel sorry for the doggy's though, apparently their Brass has a different set of priorities. It is always good to know your leaders are more worried about the long term effects of the environment, than your ass today. Yea, that could get personal.

Save the environment during peace time. Find that good bullet that doesn't pollute and is effective up close and down range, when blood is not being shed.

These are the same type of folks that want to run our Health Care System too.

Go figure.

Fred

R Moran

03-10-10, 14:16

:rolleyes:

Damn Chieftain, you just don't give up. Now your gonna come to M4carbine, to bash the M4 carbine.

Sorry, I know to many current/recent combat vets, who are more then perfectly happy with the M4 and the 5.56, including the green tip, to worry about it, as much as you feel we need to.

Give it a rest, its not 1967 anymore.

Bob

Chieftain

03-10-10, 18:18

Bob, I have some questions for you.

First question, if it is in fact working so well, why is SpecOps and Rangers replacing it with the two FN SCAR variants in 5.56 NATO & 7.62 NATO?

Why the HK XM8, XK 416/417. Or was that all for shits and giggles? Somebody is looking for something.

These things are happening NOW, not in 1967. No doubt because the present system is superior.

Second question, if it is a good solid system in this case the cartridge, why has the Corps felt a need to find "better" bullets? The Army agrees that there is a problem, BUT feels the environment is more important than the lives and abilities of their troops, particularly the trigger pullers.

SpecOps felt a need to change ammunition too. Now their preferred round the 77gr, as per reports, and Doc Roberts, not very effective out where they need it these days. worked up close in the cities of Iraq, but not delivering the goods in the mountains and countryside of A-Stan.

Are both services just blowing smok? Is SpecOps just Goofing? Or is there an issue that some of us are still able to see, in my case 43 years later. And others apparently, "Refuse to see". In Vietnam, Command order us not to complain or bitch about the rifle and round. And that came down from the Commandant.

Not many major small arms fights until Iraq I.

Rumors out of Iraq I, of problems with the system, but infantry combat was NOT intensive or pervasive.

Somalia, in a major small arms firefight, troops "once more" complain about the lack of effectiveness of the service cartridge and the media reports the problem. Then when the uproar goes away, AGAIN we forget about it.

During Iraq II, some troops complaining of problems with the system. At least one dramatic example. Poor maintenance is the scapegoat. No doubt much of that is true about maintenance, but frankly does not warrant the degree or breadth of the failures.

Repeated reports of weapons failures, from combat vets. Some work, some don't. Just like in 1967. Today a lot more work than do not, thankfully. That is an improvement since 1967.

Cartridge and bullet is still not sufficiently effective to accomplish the mission. Not as much in the MOUT operations, but Particularly in Afghanistan. We ain't in MOUT any more Dorothy. Reports are that half of all firefights are over 300 meters. Now we have a rifle that is capable to hit, but still isn't reliably effective on ole' Haji.

Please See many of Dr Roberts reports and references.

By the way, in police work they call all of that a "CLUE".

Third question, you are absolutely right about 1967, just like 2005 and 2009, it is in the past. Me, I just keep quoting George Santayana.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Which part do you disagree with? Have the troops adapted? Of course, they had no choice it is called survival skills. That doesn't mean it is what our troops need or that we should not replace the present rifle/carbine with a much more reliable rifle/carbine and cartridge.

I have yet to meet a warrior that did not want MORE lethal weapons and MORE reliability from those weapons.

I disagree with you, what do you believe has changed in 43 years to make me change my mind?

And please, with humor, "I deeply respect and will defend to my death, your right to be wrong."

Good luck.

Fred

RictusGrin

03-10-10, 20:57

I'm perfectly happy with the M4. I'm happy with the 5.56x45mm cartridge, especially Mk.262, though overall I would like to see the M855 replaced with a load taking into account what we understand about terminal effect at this point.

I would love to see Big Army get over the "green bullet" nonsense more than anything.

200RNL

03-11-10, 10:49

Chieftain

03-11-10, 17:04

This whole concept of bullet fragmentation started with the 5.56.
Now, it seems that bullet fragmentation is a requirement for all calibers. I wonder if the Vets from WW1 onwards knew that their .30 Caliber ammo was deficient?

I've never been comfortable with the concept of fragmenting bullets that are also required to have the ability to defeat barriers at the same time.

Bingo!

With the bullets that preceded the mouse round, 30 caliber bullet yaw was sufficient, with more than adequate energy and damage in most cases. Nobody was complaining of our small arms of having little or no effects upon body hits to the enemy.

Interestingly enough, during the Korean war, the 30 carbine showed some of it's problems/weaknesses. I suggest that the heavy clothing warn and often frozen because of the extremely hostal winter climate had much to do with this. I have seen no reports or examples of out right failures on the Japanese, in the tropics, or the North Korean/Chinese during the summer months. It seemed to work Okay in those situations.

The Marine Corps dumped them after Korea.

One little side bar to the Vietnam war: During the Vietnam war, many of the liberals in Sweden were not happy with the advertised capability of our new rifle and cartridge. They had read about the M16, and it's lethal killing capability.

They wanted to get the the 5.56 cartridge declared an inhumane cartridge and get the international bodies to outlaw the use of it. Some where during their testing, one of their folks suggested that they test their own military cartridge's lethality.

The Swedes were still using their 6.5mm Mauser cartridge. A very good one too.

Well their testing showed that their cartridge was much more lethal than our "over marketed" and falsely advertised mouse caliber round. They just stopped that particular axis of attack. Bottom line, they learned the hype about the new 5.56mm cartridge was BullShit.

Just another of the unending stories about the 5.56mm NATO cartridge.

Go figure.

Fred

Matt Edwards

03-11-10, 18:51

Some things never change. While we sit and bad mouth the 5.56 and the AR platform, pipe-swingers will continue to pile bad guys up like GIs on my ex-wife with both.

Continue...

R Moran

03-11-10, 19:25

Spare me the drama, hysterics and the "you don't know, you weren't there" BS, OK.

Bob, I have some questions for you.

First question, if it is in fact working so well, why is SpecOps and Rangers replacing it with the two FN SCAR variants in 5.56 NATO & 7.62 NATO?

I'm not a Ranger, I don't know. Perhaps it was for a more readily adaptable weapon? A more durable weapon? Word, I have , is many aren't to happy with it. And, more are more interested in what light is on the gun, then the calibre or operating system.

Why the HK XM8, XK 416/417. Or was that all for shits and giggles? Somebody is looking for something.

Its called progress, just like the M1 supplanted the '03, notice only one of those weapons is seeing any service. and its still in 5.56:eek: Nothing has replaced the M16 yet.

These things are happening NOW, not in 1967. No doubt because the present system is superior.

The vast majority of your comments, have always been geared toward your personal experience. And, what you think is happening, may not necessarily be the case. Just because there is a perceived need, does not mean it actually exists.

Second question, if it is a good solid system in this case the cartridge, why has the Corps felt a need to find "better" bullets? The Army agrees that there is a problem, BUT feels the environment is more important than the lives and abilities of their troops, particularly the trigger pullers.

Again, progress. The M855 is 1970's technology, designed to a different mission. The fact that it does not perform wee outside of that, should not be a surprise. IF the 7.62 does not stop a tank, does that make it a bad round? Interestingly enough, many spec ops types, have no issue with the round. Can we make it more lethal, well sure, just like any other cartridge.

SpecOps felt a need to change ammunition too. Now their preferred round the 77gr, as per reports, and Doc Roberts, not very effective out where they need it these days. worked up close in the cities of Iraq, but not delivering the goods in the mountains and countryside of A-Stan.

See above. I have not seen reports of the Mk262 round failing.

Are both services just blowing smok? Is SpecOps just Goofing? Or is there an issue that some of us are still able to see, in my case 43 years later. And others apparently, "Refuse to see". In Vietnam, Command order us not to complain or bitch about the rifle and round. And that came down from the Commandant.

Perhaps the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Perhaps, enough pressure from politicians has led them to do something.
Either way, I never said the M16fow, or the 5.56 was perfect, and could not be improved upon, only that it is not the death sentence you want everyone to believe it is.
Not many major small arms fights until Iraq I.

Probably major to them, though

Rumors out of Iraq I, of problems with the system, but infantry combat was NOT intensive or pervasive.

Somalia, in a major small arms firefight, troops "once more" complain about the lack of effectiveness of the service cartridge and the media reports the problem. Then when the uproar goes away, AGAIN we forget about it.

I suspect you are referring to Master Sgt Howes, one comment about the M855 round, in BlackHawk Down? Having trained with Mr. Howe on occasion, I have never heard him state the either the weapon or the round in inadequate. In fact, the weapon he choose to put his companies name on....a direct gas, 5.56, M4 type.:eek:
Again, interestingly, when he states he wouldn't take a 1911 to combat, he's ignored
having trained with another veteran of that action, with the same unit, that operator, stated he thought the M855 was a good round. Two different opinions, from two different men, with similar backgrounds.

During Iraq II, some troops complaining of problems with the system. At least one dramatic example. Poor maintenance is the scapegoat. No doubt much of that is true about maintenance, but frankly does not warrant the degree or breadth of the failures.

W/O marginalizing those troops, poor leadership and tactics, were much more to blame then the weapon and round. But, neither of us were there, were we?

Repeated reports of weapons failures, from combat vets. Some work, some don't. Just like in 1967. Today a lot more work than do not, thankfully. That is an improvement since 1967.

I've spoken to far to many recent combat vets, Soldiers and marines alike, who have had no issues with the weapon or the round, to really be concerned. To quote one former marine I work with, when asked about his A4 malfunctioning..."the thought never crossed my mind".

Or the VN vet I once worked with, who never had a problem with them, "we killed so many, we needed bulldozers to bury the bodies"

Cartridge and bullet is still not sufficiently effective to accomplish the mission. Not as much in the MOUT operations, but Particularly in Afghanistan. We ain't in MOUT any more Dorothy. Reports are that half of all firefights are over 300 meters. Now we have a rifle that is capable to hit, but still isn't reliably effective on ole' Haji.

My point. The weapon and round, were not designed in a vacuum, no one just thru it at the troops and said here ya go. AAR's after WW2, & Korea, showed the vast majority of the fighting was done well with in 300mtrs. We saw what the Germans had going on, and felt it was a better way of doing things. The assault rifle was adopted. The fact that the "rules" have changed, which makes it difficult for the Soldiers to effectively use all the assets they have, and employ the TTP's and doctrine they were trained for, is not the fault of the weapon.
Much like giving fighter pilots long range missiles, in VN, then restricting them on the distance at which they could engage.

Please See many of Dr Roberts reports and references.

I've read much of, if not all of what Doc Roberts had written, probably been reading his posts longer then you have. I also know people who have talked to him personally.

By the way, in police work they call all of that a "CLUE".

I also know Pat Rogers:D

Third question, you are absolutely right about 1967, just like 2005 and 2009, it is in the past. Me, I just keep quoting George Santayana.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

The key is to learn the right lessons. We did learn from the past, hence the assault rifle. What we should really learn, is proper training, skill sets, TTP's, & maintenance(not cleaning) are of paramount importance.

Which part do you disagree with? Have the troops adapted? Of course, they had no choice it is called survival skills. That doesn't mean it is what our troops need or that we should not replace the present rifle/carbine with a much more reliable rifle/carbine and cartridge.

I have yet to meet a warrior that did not want MORE lethal weapons and MORE reliability from those weapons.

I disagree with you, what do you believe has changed in 43 years to make me change my mind?

And please, with humor, "I deeply respect and will defend to my death, your right to be wrong."

As do you

Good luck.

Fred

Some additional points...

Why is it, when a Soldier says he weapon sux, its proof positive that the M16 and 5.56 are worthless.
But, when the reports are troops are satisfied with it, by a margin of 84%, they don't know what they are talking about?

Why is it, only certain people combat experience counts? The kind that supports your opinion.

Why is it, that the 1911 lasting 80 years in service is proof that its the greatest pistol of all time, but the M16 lasting 40, is a fluke? especially considering the m16 put far more people in the ground.

Why is it, I'm told to read someones thoughts, yet when his thoughts don't fully align on another subject, its ignored?

Why?

Again, I've talked to alot of people, guys who know first hand why there are issues, what the real issues are.

Nothing has changed. troops still need to..

Hit their target
operate with in the capability of their weapon system
Not expect Hollywood effects
Lubricate their weapon
Replace worn parts as needed

What I really find interesting, though, is why, with your hatred toward the system, you choose to come to M4 carbine.net? to spread the word?

Bob

R Moran

03-11-10, 19:28

If I were facing an onrushing vehicle that needed to be stopped I'd be happy with an M1 Garand loaded with .30 Cal M2 AP.

This whole concept of bullet fragmentation started with the 5.56.
Now, it seems that bullet fragmentation is a requirement for all calibers. I wonder if the Vets from WW1 onwards knew that their .30 Caliber ammo was deficient?

I've never been comfortable with the concept of fragmenting bullets that are also required to have the ability to defeat barriers at the same time.

Vets in WW1 also realized the need for an assualt rifle. Thus the Pederson device.

Using technology, ie bullet fragmentation, to give the troops a more lethal round, yet retain, a light, low recoil, weapon, with higher capacity, is abad thing:confused:

Bob

200RNL

03-11-10, 22:31

I suggest that the heavy clothing warn and often frozen because of the extremely hostal winter climate had much to do with this. I have seen no reports or examples of out right failures on the Japanese, in the tropics, or the North Korean/Chinese during the summer months. It seemed to work Okay in those situations.

I've never believed that one. Maybe some GI found a .30 Carbine bullet sticking out of the frozen quilted uniform of a dead Chinese soldier. What he didn't didn't know was that the bullet had passed through a tree first or had traveled 1500yds before impact.

The Carbine is capable of alot more penetration than the .45 ACP out of a pistol or submachine gun and we never hear of frozen uniform failures with that caliber.

Using technology, ie bullet fragmentation, to give the troops a more lethal round, yet retain, a light, low recoil, weapon, with higher capacity, is a bad thing?

If fragmentation is the only way to achieve adequate perfomance then I'm all for it. I just don't believe it is the only way. We still need good performance against barriers.

The Russian 5.45 bullet is designed to produce early yaw and does not fragment in tissue. The Russians seem satisfied with that bullet's performance. Well, at least I haven't heard of any complaints. Someone correct me if they know of some.

I remember hearing of reports, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, stating that the 5.45 bullet was called a poison bullet due to it's nasty effects on flesh.

Those reports sound similar to the inaccurate reports of ghastly wounds from 5.56 bullets when that caliber was first used in Vietnam. Were those first reports about 5.45 exaggerated as well? I don't know the answer to that question but I would think that if those bullets were effective, it would be a way to have good barrier penetration and good performance in tissue all rolled into one.

tpd223

03-11-10, 23:13

My dad was in Korea, and had a few opinons on some of the BS rumors and myths that came out of that war.

The .30carbine is more than capable of penetrating heavy or frozen clothing, in fact this round penetrates much of the current level II and IIIa body armor in my experience.

My pop's take on the matter was alot of folks spent alot of time missing, especially with the M2 carbine, as in; "I emptied a whole clip into that (insert non-PC name for North Korean bad guys here) and he just ran away".

Pops was a serious shooter, and took marksmanship and hitting bad guys solidly very seriously.

One day he shot a south bound North Korean with the entire clip (notice the proper use of the term "clip") from his M1, to no immediate effect. Ammo was black tip AP, a bullet my dad was very fond of due to it's ability to dig bad guys out from cover rather well.

Just for fun;

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot36.htm

I know another Vietnam vet who had occasion to double tap, with an M14, an NVA who was shooting at him with a PPsh41, and although both rounds hit and the guy went down, he had to repeat this sequence two more times before the bad guy got the message.

Matt Edwards

03-11-10, 23:15

Posted by Fred-"First question, if it is in fact working so well, why is SpecOps and Rangers replacing it with the two FN SCAR variants in 5.56 NATO & 7.62 NATO?"
Check your facts. As you have written it, it is inaccurate. And I mean WAAAY inaccurate.

From R. Moran-
"Why is it, when a Soldier says his weapon sux, its proof positive that the M16 and 5.56 are worthless.
But, when the reports are troops are satisfied with it, by a margin of 84%, they don't know what they are talking about?"

"Why is it, that the 1911 lasting 80 years in service is proof that its the greatest pistol of all time, but the M16 lasting 40, is a fluke? especially considering the m16 put far more people in the ground."

The above comments are pure magic.

The AR/5.56 is not perfect. However, if you don't think they have served us well you are either simply benighted or just plain ignorant.
I don't know why I always get into this particular "argument" as the out come is always the same. The internet will continue thumbing it's nose at the platform and caliber, and our warriors will continue to slay fools with them.
The guys that use them the most will continue to be the guys that complain about them the least.
Funny how that works...

DocGKR

03-12-10, 01:09

"I remember hearing of reports, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, stating that the 5.45 bullet was called a poison bullet due to it's nasty effects on flesh."

While I can't vouch for the accuracy, according to some SF colleagues who took time to investigate this bit of trivia during their recent Afghan sojourn, "poison", in this context of "poison bullet", refers to the small amount of poison from a bee/wasp or other insect sting. In other words, the Muj were saying the 5.45x39 mm hit like an insect bite, not the hammer of Thor...

tpd223

03-12-10, 04:31

In my experience the AR/M16 system is more reliable than, and can be generally run harder than, the M1, M14, M1 carbine, SKS, M60 machine gun, M2 .50 BMG, M3 Grease Gun, Thompson M1928a1, model 66 S&W, 1911s, and all of the AKs I have shot.

The only guns that have consistently worked for me as well as the ARs are the S&W 5906 and Glocks, both in 9mm, and the Ruger Security Six.

One one man's observations from a bunch of shooting and running ranges for other shooters.

200RNL

03-12-10, 11:48

"poison", in this context of "poison bullet", refers to the small amount of poison from a bee/wasp or other insect sting. In other words, the Muj were saying the 5.45x39 mm hit like an insect bite, not the hammer of Thor...

You just cleared something up for me Doc.

Years ago I remember some mujahideen guy named Muhammad something or other saying something about flying like a butterfly stinging like a bee. I didn't realize he was talking about his AK74. ;)

200RNL

03-12-10, 12:19

In my experience the AR/M16 system is more reliable than, and can be generally run harder than, the M1, M14, M1 carbine, SKS, M60 machine gun, M2 .50 BMG, M3 Grease Gun, Thompson M1928a1, model 66 S&W, 1911s, and all of the AKs I have shot.

I would like to hear some details about what you have learned about the weaknesses of those firearms, sounds interesting.

I am not against any design. I just try to evaluate each firearm and let the chips fall where they may. There are alot of good things to be said about the M16 series but there are some things about the design that bother me....broken bolts, cam pins, receiver extension for the recoil spring etc.

I like the Carbine but the right bolt lugs and operating slides break and the recoil spring is weak. The designers could have corrected those issues but there was a war on.

I like the M14 but the unnecessary full auto parts complicate the design and the stock inletting for those parts weaken the stock. I consider the semi auto M1A a product improved M14.

I could add more but I think you get the idea.

Getting back to bullets, I would like to see improvements in the 5.56 bullet that would eliminate some of the complaints. I just don't think that relying on fragmentation is the way to go for a bullet that is employed on a battlefield.

vicious_cb

03-13-10, 00:53

I would like to hear some details about what you have learned about the weaknesses of those firearms, sounds interesting.

I am not against any design. I just try to evaluate each firearm and let the chips fall where they may. There are alot of good things to be said about the M16 series but there are some things about the design that bother me....broken bolts, cam pins, receiver extension for the recoil spring etc.

I like the Carbine but the right bolt lugs and operating slides break and the recoil spring is weak. The designers could have corrected those issues but there was a war on.

I like the M14 but the unnecessary full auto parts complicate the design and the stock inletting for those parts weaken the stock. I consider the semi auto M1A a product improved M14.

I could add more but I think you get the idea.

Getting back to bullets, I would like to see improvements in the 5.56 bullet that would eliminate some of the complaints. I just don't think that relying on fragmentation is the way to go for a bullet that is employed on a battlefield.

You have you realize we are putting many many more rounds through our service rifles than ever before. There are training packages out there that have you run thousands and thousands of rounds over a very short time period of time. I dont think weapons like the M1 garand or the M14 had to face that kind of punishment nor would I think they would hold up as well.

200RNL

03-13-10, 13:33

There are training packages out there that have you run thousands and thousands of rounds over a very short time period of time. I dont think weapons like the M1 garand or the M14 had to face that kind of punishment nor would I think they would hold up as well.

I don't know if I can agree with you on that point.

During WW2, The weapons used at training bases, training of millions of recruits, would have had incredible round counts. I would like to know what wore out and broke in those guns.

500grains

03-14-10, 09:01

First question, if it is in fact working so well, why is SpecOps and Rangers replacing it with the two FN SCAR variants in 5.56 NATO & 7.62 NATO?

Why the HK XM8, XK 416/417. Or was that all for shits and giggles? Somebody is looking for something.

These things are happening NOW, not in 1967. No doubt because the present system is superior.

I have to agree with Chieftain about both the rifle and the cartridge. As a civilian, a gas impingement AR-15 is fine for me because I can clean it at my leisure. However, for men risking their lives in the field, since a more reliable option exists I think they should receive it.

Same for the caliber. It should be obvious by now that with Geneva Convention compliant ammo, the 5.56 is frequently not a one shot stopper. If the 6.8 or 6.5 grendel or whatever has the right amount of zing, then as a taxpayer I am all in favor of us paying for the switch.

Also, the Major's report about our soldiers being ineffective beyond 200 yds is very disturbing. Sounds like the Army needs a major rifle doctrine overhaul. I see no reason why an infantry soldier cannot be taught to hit a man-sized silhouette at 500 yards. Granted, that may not be important to a fellow clearing a room, but he may be called on to shoot rooftop to rooftop, or his next encounter may be on an open mountainside, across a valley, across a wide piece of open desert, etc.

Regarding the average soldier saying he is satisfied with the M-4 and 5.56, I would like to remark that they are typically not experts in ballistics or in the types of arms which are available to them, so they may not realize that much better-performing hardware is out there and could be provided to them. This is not a criticism of the soldier, but not all of us can be experts in everything.

rsilvers

03-14-10, 09:47

The Geneva Convention did not cover ammo.

decodeddiesel

03-14-10, 10:15

The Geneva Convention did not cover ammo.

Thank you. It was instead covered (well more than 100 years ago) by the Hague Convention. Honestly I wish we would just realize how dated the whole thing is and just abandon it.

Matt Edwards

03-14-10, 10:38

1) I have to agree with Chieftain about both the rifle and the cartridge. As a civilian, a gas impingement AR-15 is fine for me because I can clean it at my leisure. However, for men risking their lives in the field, since a more reliable option exists I think they should receive it.

2)Same for the caliber. It should be obvious by now that with Geneva Convention compliant ammo, the 5.56 is frequently not a one shot stopper. If the 6.8 or 6.5 grendel or whatever has the right amount of zing, then as a taxpayer I am all in favor of us paying for the switch.

3)Also, the Major's report about our soldiers being ineffective beyond 200 yds is very disturbing. Sounds like the Army needs a major rifle doctrine overhaul. I see no reason why an infantry soldier cannot be taught to hit a man-sized silhouette at 500 yards. Granted, that may not be important to a fellow clearing a room, but he may be called on to shoot rooftop to rooftop, or his next encounter may be on an open mountainside, across a valley, across a wide piece of open desert, etc.

4)Regarding the average soldier saying he is satisfied with the M-4 and 5.56, I would like to remark that they are typically not experts in ballistics or in the types of arms which are available to them, so they may not realize that much better-performing hardware is out there and could be provided to them. This is not a criticism of the soldier, but not all of us can be experts in everything.

I numberd the responces for ease of referance.
1) My gun always worked. I am a habitual non-cleaner. I agree that "better is better" but we aren't taliking about a "C" and an "A" here. We are talking about an "A" and an "A+". As far as men in the field goes, I think that ONLY men who have experiance in the feild should even talk about these subjects. I deal every day with the "men in the feild". Most are MUCH more conserned about which sling they have then their carbine. Many of them are confused when they hear the platform/ammo is inefective.

2)NOTHING carried and fired with two hands by a standard Infantry type is a one shot stopper. Stop the madness.

3) The Army is not alone here. Remember the vast majority of the "the 5.56 is inefective" talk, no matter what service, comes from not hitting the intended target. So, if we are hearing "we need a new round" form the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force, they all have the same problem.

4) The problem with your statment is that all these chages stemed from what we "heard" the GI IN THE FIELD wants. That is why all this started. Now, when we actually asked,in a controled manner instead of the rumor mill, we found that most like it just fine. Why did we listen on one side of the arguement, but turn our hearing aids off for the second? I agree that Joe GI may not be an expert. But the guy in a lab coat, counducting test in a "dust chamber" certainly isn't. I'm sorry for giving the Infantryman a nod here. That is the point.

Better is better, and I'm all for it. It is why my beloved 1911 sits in the safe. However, we don't have to pretend that history didn't happen just because we need/want a new gun. The M16 FOW is a great platform. It's service record can only be compard to that of the 1911 and M2 HBMG and the like. Is it time to switch? WHo knows. However, we don't have to vilify the AR to do it.
Is it so hard to state simply that the AR is a great gun, but we want somthing a little better? Is that so hard?

R Moran

03-14-10, 11:59

As much as I hate this term....+1 Matt!!

If you are not or have never been a Soldier, perhaps you just don't know.

The weapon does not need to be clean, only lubricated. This has been demonstrated time and time again. Even in another dust chamber test, that everyone seems to forget.

Its been posted, on this very forum, by real deal SME's that the direct gas system is fine for 99.9% of the troops. The piston comes into play..
Running barrels shorter then 14 inches
Running a suppressor
significant amounts of full auto fire.

All that rarely if ever applies to troops outside of SOF

While the Major made a number of good points, the lesson that should be taken away, is not an equipment fix, but a training fix.
Funny, its almost cliche on the forums, to " its the Indian not the arrow", "mindset", "training" etc. etc., but not when it comes to the M16fow and 5.56

The modern Infantryman has alot on his training plate, multiple weapons systems, land mines, land nav, commo, sensitivity training(!), PT, on and on. While its easy to sit here on the keyboard, and declare we need to spend more time at 500mtrs, leaders have to continuously prioritize training requirements.
What happens if we update training to reflect the need for long range individual rifle engagements, then we find ourselves, in MOUT again, the military will then be vilified for not foreseeing the future.

Long ago, it was finally realized that the majority of engagements do not take place past 100mtrs, with even fewer at 3-500. We adjusted our weapon systems and training doctrine to reflect that.
It was always held that combined arms, indirect, cas etc. would fight the fight at longer ranges(look at what SOF did in tora bora), that ROE have been changed, to make it very difficult to employ our doctrine should not reflect poorly on the military or doctrine, but on the politicians, who like to send troops off to war, but don't have the stomach for it, and want to do it in a PC sorta way.

I routinely see guys in training, that are proud "rifleman", could qual expert every time, "know how to shoot an A2", but they shoot poorly on our quals, because they can't get "2 to the body in 3 seconds" thru their head.

We need to be careful not to fixate on what aspect of the weapon system, to the detriment of the others. Its easy to champion the 7.62, when you don't have to shoot it and carry it. Why not .338 or .50BMG, after all they have superior terminal ballistics, right?

As for M855, I'm unsure of why a bullet designed to shoot thru body armor at long range, has such a difficult time with other barriers, but it was designed to meet a certain threat, that never materialized, so be it, move on.

IIRC, the much loved .30cal M1906, went thru numerous changes until we arrived at the 150grn spitzer.
Many people did not trust velocity, when the smokeless era was ushered in, and felt we should have stayed with the .45-70.

Bob

200RNL

03-14-10, 12:03

Is it time to switch? WHo knows. However, we don't have to vilify the AR to do it.
Is it so hard to state simply that the AR is a great gun, but we want somthing a little better? Is that so hard?

If the troops are happy with the direct gas system AR then the question is settled.
Especially in these times, the government is not going to appropriate tons of money (that we don't have) for something that's a little better. I think they will improve 5.56 ammo, that's it, case closed.

BrianS

03-14-10, 17:32

“SOST is a good round, but SOST is not a lead-free slug,” said Lt. Col. Tom Henthorn, chief of the Small Arms Branch at the Soldier Requirements Division at Fort Benning, Ga.

The Army will continue to develop an environmentally friendly 5.56mm, as well as a lead-free 7.62mm bullet, Henthorn added, “because we care about the environment.”

Why not use the SOST round until they have successfully developed the magic bullet? Why do we always have to let the perfect be the enemy of the good with these people in the government?

200RNL

03-14-10, 19:28

Why not use the SOST round until they have successfully developed the magic bullet?
Why? because liberalism is a dangerous mental disorder.

Lead has been used in warfare for hundreds of years and now all of a sudden there is an environmental crisis and we have to use green bullets to make the green weenies happy, even if our guys have to die for it.

SuicideHz

04-09-10, 11:31

The "Green" hippies got to them I see...

The million dollar question is-

Are these rounds "sustainable"??

That's the NEW hippy buzzword these days. Doesn't even have a real definition and that's what makes it so damn funny...
:rolleyes:

decodeddiesel

04-09-10, 11:48

Mr. Moran and Mr. Edwards, I just wanted to say thank you for your posts. Sage words from men who know what they are talking about.

Chieftain

04-09-10, 18:07

Army Secretary Sees New Carbine to Replace M4

March 31, 2010|Christian Lowe

Kit Up spoke with Army Secretary John McHugh this morning at a round table interview with top defense scribes in DC.

I pinged him on the glacial pace of the improved carbine program (the replacement or redesign of the M4) and he seemed to indicate that while he sees the program as proceeding apace -- given the requirements and bureaucratic hurdles with such a massive change -- the end result will be a "replacement" of the M4, not just a revamped version, say, with a gas piston operating system or tweaked components.

We have a two part plan to over time replace the M4 with the next variant, whatever that may be. ... We are working the requirements for a [request for proposals] for an eventual replacement of the M4 and a new generation of personal carbine.

Now, you'll remember that my friend Matt Cox over at Army Times got his hands on a briefing slide circulated by PEO Soldier Brig. Gen. Pete Fuller on the Hill showing the near-term improvements the service planned to make to the M4, including a heavier barrel, improved trigger pull, a gas piston system and ambidextrous controls.

A lot of gun watchers think this is a straw man that the Army will erect to impede the fielding of a real replacement for the M4 -- that there's a large institutional pull in the service to wait until that "leap ahead" technology presents itself for a full-on replacement of the standard-issue carbine. I did sense some frustration with PM-level officials that this requirements process was getting bogged down (particularly on the subcompact weapon) and that some folks were impeding the process.

Not so, says McHugh:
It is our intent to field a new personal carbine and to do regular order. I am not at the point right now to suggest that we are not moving in a timely manner.

But McHugh did spin the familiar Army line of "I haven't heard any Soldiers criticizing the M4" -- which one must have to take with a grain of salt, particularly when speaking to troops in Afghanistan. Of the Joes I've spoken to on this issue, the "hate the M4" crowd outnumbers the "It's fine" crowd 3-to-1.

But, at the end of the day, it's clear the McHugh sees a whole new weapon coming down the pike...SCAR?...He doesn't say:

We feel it's a good weapon, we understand that time moves on and we want to upgrade and develop a new one and that's going forward, from my perspective, in due course.

Sigh!

Go figure.

Fred

R Moran

04-10-10, 06:57

Sigh??? Why?

The Army was critised for fielding the M16 to fast in the 60's, and now its critised for not moving fast enough with a replacement.

Does the author have an real numbers and figures for his 3 to 1 statement? The Army has actual studies in its hand.
I could just as easily, truthfully and confidently say the numbers in favor of the M4/a4 are 100% of the troops I've talked to.

Bob

Chieftain

04-10-10, 07:19

Yup,

It's everyone else. But you got it.

Go figure.

Fred

TehLlama

04-10-10, 15:21

I'm wondering if the use of Bismuth caused any unusual molding issues (more dense as a liquid than a solid). Doesn't the tin-bismuth frament less? Isn't that the primary advertized wound mechanism for M855 on soft targets?

As another 'hooray' note, the top producer of Bismuth is: CHINA! Score! What's not to love about the trend of outsourcing our ability to produce ammunition on demand?

I'm very glad we're getting Mk318 - I guess the LFC crap is fine for shooting at domestic ranges - too bad the mandarins in the rear will never comprehend that memo.

DMR

06-23-10, 20:36

Things are progressing per the Army Times:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/06/army_green_ammo_062310w/

‘Green’ ammo shipped to Afghanistan
http://www.armytimes.com/xml/news/2010/06/army_green_ammo_062310w/062310_m855a1_cartridge_800.JPG
By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Jun 23, 2010 16:33:43 EDT

This summer soldiers will start fighting with a new, “green” bullet that Army ballistics officials are touting as “the best general purpose 5.56mm round ever.”

The Army has begun shipping the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round to soldiers serving in Afghanistan, according to a June 23 press release from Picatinny Arsenal, N.J.

The announcement comes 11 months after the service had to halt the program when the M855A1 lead-free slug failed to perform under high temperatures.

The new M855A1 will replace the current Cold War-era M855 round, which was developed in the 1970s and approved as an official NATO round in 1980.

In recent years, troops have widely criticized it. They complain it is ineffective against barriers such as car windshields and often travels right through unarmored insurgents, with less than lethal effects.

The M855A1 has a “number of significant enhancements not found in the current round. These include improved hard-target capability, more dependable, consistent performance at all distances, improved accuracy, reduced muzzle flash and a higher velocity,” the press release stated.

“During testing, the M855A1 performed better than current 7.62mm ball ammunition against certain types of targets, blurring the performance differences that previously separated the two rounds.”

The Army has recently completed the Limited Rate Initial Production phase for the M855A1 and is beginning the follow-on full rate production phase in which they plan to procure more than 200 millions rounds over the next 12 to 15 months.

Unlike the current round, the M855A1 is designed for use in the M4 carbine, which has a 14.5-inch barrel compared to the M16’s 20-inch barrel.

The Enhanced Performance Round contains an environmentally friendly projectile that eliminates up to 2,000 tons of lead from the manufacturing process each year in direct support of Army commitment to environmental stewardship, the release states.

“Its fielding represents the most significant advancement in general purpose small caliber ammunition in decades,” Lt. Col. Jeffrey K. Woods, the program’s product manager, said in the release.

nickdrak

06-23-10, 20:42

"The Enhanced Performance Round contains an environmentally friendly projectile"

Thats just too silly to be true!:p

Entropy

06-23-10, 20:55

I don't care if it is lead free or not......as long as it is better overall than M855. I wonder when we'll see some of this trickle onto the civilian market. I'd like to pick some up.

decodeddiesel

06-23-10, 21:22

For the sake of the warfighters who will get stuck with this ammunition I hope it is half as good as Army Times touted it to me.

vicious_cb

06-24-10, 01:00

By Matthew Cox - Staff writer

Stopped reading right there. Cox spews more bullshit than a broken toilet.

TiroFijo

06-24-10, 08:24

When they say "improved performance" it is regarding penetration against certain (most?) intermediate barriers. The powder is also the improved one for more temperature stability, low flash, and higher velocity.

I would guess (??) it has a steel core, far cheaper than other options. The all steel core would be a bit more accurate than the lead + steel plug of the M855. The swedes have an all steel core "green" bullet in use since about 2001. They reported increased penetration, but IIRC there have been reports of earlier bore erosion. The combloc steel core bullets all have a lead layer between jacket and core to reduce rifling wear.

Now, the question is: does it retains the fragmenting behaviour of M193 and M855? I would gess not. And of course it does not expand.

Edited to add the NDIA 2010 memo on the family of US "green" bullets:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/ThursdayLandmarkBJeffreyWoods.pdf

Safetyhit

06-28-10, 18:39

Welcome M855A1...

http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/scitech/2010/06/02/military-tech-action/?test=latestnews

Shawn Dodson

06-28-10, 19:07

Wound profile?

Leatherneck556

06-28-10, 19:52

Wound profile and other specs? (Projectile weight, muzzle velocity, etc)

Shawn Dodson

06-30-10, 10:25

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k169/obviousfakename/m855a1.jpg

DocGKR

06-30-10, 12:09

Shawn,

Keep in mind the photo of the cross section above is of the failed M855A1 LFS from 2009 that used a bismuth-tin core; this is NOT the same as the current M855A1 EPR with the copper-tin core that is beginning to get fielded now.

tpd223

06-30-10, 12:30

The lead free bullet idea is one of the more retarded things I have ever seen come down the pike.

Glad the bullet is getting fielded, but I hope we have a back-up plan for bullets that uses less copper if we find ourselves in a position to need it.

DocGKR

06-30-10, 13:23

Mk318 Mod0, 70 gr Optimal/"brown tip", Mk262 Mod1, Mk255 Mod0...

Shawn Dodson

06-30-10, 13:31

...this is NOT the same as the current M855A1 EPR with the copper-tin core... Thanks for pointing that out.

DocGKR

06-30-10, 13:46

Essentially the same design, but different core material.

TiroFijo

06-30-10, 16:52

The copper-tin alloy core should be much more expensive than lead or steel...

Does it break up in two, or fragment, on gel tests?
Or just tumble?
Is muzzle velocity the same as Mk318, about 2925 fps out of a 14.5" barrel?

Looks like a good penetrator, period...

Entropy

06-30-10, 18:17

......this is NOT the same as the current M855A1 EPR with the copper-tin core that is beginning to get fielded now.

So the new core is bronze then. Hopefully this thing will even fragment at all.

Belmont31R

06-30-10, 18:42

DocGKR

06-30-10, 18:57

Belmont31R

06-30-10, 19:19

Belmont31R--I believe tpd223 is lamenting about the hundreds of millions of dollars and over a decade of time wasted on the Big Army's M855 "green" replacements, including the failed tungsten-nylon and bismuth-tin variants, when simple COTS solutions like the TOTM and TSX were available...

What I don't understand is why our two ground pounder services are now both using 2 different rounds. Commonality seems like it would be a HUGE plus here....?

DocGKR

06-30-10, 19:49

Perhaps the Marine Corps got tired of being lied to...or maybe they realize Mk318 is a more tested and capable projectile against our current threats.

tpd223

06-30-10, 22:45

Belmont31R--I believe tpd223 is lamenting about the hundreds of millions of dollars and over a decade of time wasted on the Big Army's M855 "green" replacements, including the failed tungsten-nylon and bismuth-tin variants, when simple COTS solutions like the TOTM and TSX were available...

What Doc said.

Think of how much TSX/DPX we could have bought our warfighters for the money spent on this green friendly BS.
Even in the case of the bullet in discussion, I am pretty sure it would be more effective if it had a denser rear core, just a SWAG I'm making.

rsilvers

07-01-10, 20:07

So which ammo that I cannot buy should I wish I had more, M855A1 or Mk318?

Entropy

07-01-10, 21:07

So which ammo that I cannot buy should I wish I had more, M855A1 or Mk318?

Just buy a 6.8. Then you don't have to be so picky about ammo as the regular OTM makes for a great all around barrier penetrator.

rsilvers

07-02-10, 06:33

Well I have a 6.8 but I am very interested in knowing how Mk318 compares to M855A1 and Mk262 and NATO Tap 75.

DocGKR

07-02-10, 10:33

It all depends on what you are going to use it for...

Personally, the Mk318 Mod0 seems to strike a good balance between terminal performance, intermediate barrier capability, accuracy, flash characteristics, and cost.

Keep in mind that there are LE loads that work as well, if not better.

Leatherneck556

07-02-10, 13:31

Yes, it is much better. If I were going into combat armed with a 5.56 mm carbine, I'd want to be running the Mk318.

Doc, I remember you saying this earlier on in the discussion. But here you say that there are better LE rounds. What would you say is better? I had thought from the above quote that you felt Mk318 was about the best 5.56 round available.

As far as use goes, I'd say "general purpose combat." If you could have only one round to do whatever you needed from CQB to shooting through intermediate barriers to hitting badguys 300+ yards away, what would it be?

DocGKR

07-02-10, 18:09

U.S. military ammunition needs to be JAG approved, LE ammo does not--therefore, the intended use matters. In a military combat setting armed with a 5.56 mm carbine, with engagement distances from 0-300 meters, the Mk318 Mod 0 would be my first choice in ammo.

For CONUS LE use, where most shots are under 100 yards and a significant number of shots occur around vehicles, I'd rather go with 55 or 62 gr Federal bonded JSP Tactical, followed in no particular order by the Nosler 60 gr Partition JSP, Remington 62 gr bonded JSP, Speer 55 & 64 gr Gold Dot JSP's (or the identically constructed Federal 62 gr Fusion JSP), Swift 75 gr Scirrocco PT, or Barnes 55 gr TSX.

jmart

07-03-10, 12:58

Where does the Hornady TAP barrier round fall in this mix? Was it ommitted due to lack of testing or is it inferior to the listed loads?

DocGKR

07-03-10, 14:48

It doesn't, as the Hornady 62 gr "Barrier" JSP is more on par with the Win 64 gr RA223R2 JSP or Fed 64 gr TRU (223L) JSP.

grunz

07-03-10, 18:27

Doc,

Any reason for preference of Barnes 55gr TSX vs the 70gr TSX?

Thanks!

DocGKR

07-03-10, 19:27

As previously noted, with a non-fragmenting bullet design like the TSX, heavier bullet weights are not necessarily better, especially at closer ranges and from shorter barrels. As long as penetration and upset remain adequate, it is possible to use lighter weight non-fragmenting bullets and still have outstanding terminal performance. With fragmenting designs, a heavier bullet is ideal, as it provides more potential fragments and still allows the central core to have enough mass for adequate penetration.

The 55 gr TSX used in the Federal (T223S) load stabilizes in barrel twists from 1/12 through 1/7, unlike the 53 gr TSX which is a bit longer than the 55 gr TSX, due to a different ogive and does not stabilize as consistently in all 1/12 twist barrels. The 55 gr TSX offers a flat shooting, high velocity projectile that offers excellent soft tissue terminal performance and good penetration.

When TSX's when fired through auto windshields, the jacket "petals" collapse against the nose, fold back against the core, or the "petals" are torn off; this results in a caliber size projectile configured a lot like a full wadcutter, leading to deep penetration whether shooting light or heavy TSX projectiles:

Barnes 53 gr TSX BG/auto window & Barnes 70 gr TSX BG/auto window fired from 16" 1/7 barrel at 10 feet:
http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/556TSXglass.jpg?t=1234771284
As illustrated above, the lighter TSX's expand more in soft tissue and are no different when fired through auto glass than the heavier 70 gr TSX.

Thus for the vast majority of CONUS LE/personal defense use at typical ranges of under 100 yds, the 55 gr TSX offer the most versatility. For environments were longer range engagements beyond 300 meters may be necessary, the heavier 70 gr TSX is superior due to better BC and less wind drift (the 70 gr has a BC of .314, while the 55 gr has a .209 BC).

grunz

07-03-10, 19:54

Thx DOC!

C-grunt

07-15-10, 02:36

variablebinary

07-15-10, 04:29

Ive been searching for a while and cant find any info about this round other than its construction. Anybody got info regarding the greater MV (14.5 inch barrel) and wounding characteristics that the Army is claiming?

I'd like to see this type of info as well. To be honest, my expectations are on the low side, but I would certainly like to be unexpectedly surprised.

Entropy

07-15-10, 09:18

Hopefully someone with access to this ammo will send some to Dr. Roberts for testing......if Doc is willing. ;)

Todd.K

07-15-10, 11:05

I have only seen the Army release info on cinder block and steel plate penetration and ignore questions about terminal performance vs SOST.........

C-grunt

07-16-10, 03:33

I have only seen the Army release info on cinder block and steel plate penetration and ignore questions about terminal performance vs SOST.........

How did it do against the blocks and steel?

Personally I believe it should fragment pretty reliably. Once it yaws, the space between the jacket and the penetrator is a definite weak spot. Then the core has the three distinct sections with the "steps" that I bet would snap pretty easily.

Hopefully Im right.

TiroFijo

07-16-10, 07:51

The big question is: is the rear core molten alloy or a compressed matrix?

TiroFijo

07-16-10, 08:31

This is the sectional view:

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=123438&d=1277916191

The rear core is now "tin/copper"... I don't think they made it from bronze, too ductile.

It is longer than M855, and I would think it yaws early and breaks up in two... it may even fragment at high velocity if the rear core is made of some kind of compressed matrix.

The steps are in the steel section, it seems it won't snap in smaller sections on a soft target.

ucrt

07-16-10, 12:35

I might have missed it somewhere but what color will the tip be? I can't imagine it still being "green tip" ammo.

A nice fushia tip would contrast very well with the NATO Helmets... :D

Todd.K

07-16-10, 13:33

http://armytimes.va.newsmemory.com/d...etup=armytimes
"The Army has spent about $32 million on the LFS program since fiscal 2007."

“SOST is a good round, but SOST is not a lead-free slug,”

"Army ballistics officials said “we are not at liberty to compare it to SOST,” Grassano said."

"Small arms training accounts for about 2,000 metric tons of lead going into the environment every year, Army officials say."

If all goes well in testing, the M855A1 will be ready in June in “sufficient quantities to satisfy the needs of theater,”

I cannot reconcile these last two statements. If the problem is lead on training ranges we could have simply been using a COTS lead free bullet for training for the last 10 years. Instead we have been using lead on the ranges developing a green combat bullet, and now ignore a better performing bullet for combat because it has lead.

rsilvers

04-09-11, 09:57

Lead free primers should be good for training, but they don't last as long and would not be good to stockpile for combat.

The_War_Wagon

04-09-11, 12:10

Love for Mother Earth before VICTORY, don'tcha know. :rolleyes:

DocGKR

04-09-11, 12:16

DocGKR

04-09-11, 12:31

“SOST is a good round, but SOST is not a lead-free slug”

Actually, this is not true. SOST Is an extremely adaptable and scalable design. It can be done in a variety of calibers, configurations, and core materials--there is in fact a lead free version of SOST.

Safetyhit

04-09-11, 13:29

It leads back to the fundamental question of WHY does the Army have a requirement for lead free combat ammunition?

Probably for the same reasons they have lead free hunting ammo. Made to kill, but won't hurt the neighboring civilians if they eat it.

Redmanfms

04-09-11, 14:01

It leads back to the fundamental question of WHY does the Army have a requirement for lead free combat ammunition?

Aerosolized lead from primers, exposed lead on rifle bullet bases, etc... can certainly be an issue, especially on indoor ranges; however, I am unable to locate any studies that demonstrate lead core bullets, particularly those with reverse jackets, are causing any environmental problems on outdoor ranges.

I know there was some hysteria created by a politically-motivated "study" that was used by gun-grabber groups in an attempt to shut down public rifle ranges a few years ago. It claimed that lead was being entrained during the soil infiltration process and contaminating groundwater.

I know for certain the Army has actually studied just this phenomenon quite a few times over the years because many of its installations are groundwater dependent and have ranges that see many millions of rounds a year, obviously leading to some serious lead deposit. All of the studies I read indicated the lead stays more-or-less in place with minimal leaching even in areas of high rainfall. I know I used a couple of these studies to aid in the defense of a local public range that was on National Forest land.

Sadly, this was years ago and the studies were saved on another computer that I destroyed upon retirement, but I suspect the former "study" (or something like it) is likely what motivated the desire for lead-free projectiles. If I can ever dig them up again (both the gun-grabber report and the Army studies) I'll be sure to post them.

MegademiC

12-05-11, 21:45

lead free just sounds good since we've had "lead=bad" drilled into our skulls. Where do you think lead comes from? Sure, certain lead compounds are bad, and you dont want to bathe in it, but you get it on your hand, wash it off. Lead free primers for practice and regular for combat would be more than good enough.

I swear the shit people worry about causes more harm from stress than the substance itself. Reminds me of Dioxin.. one of the "most toxic man-made substances". How many people have died from it? Is it bad, yes. Does it kill on contact? No.

edit - AAAaand bump for mk318. Didnt realize this thread was so old :/

200RNL

12-06-11, 01:05

I swear the shit people worry about causes more harm from stress than the substance itself. Reminds me of Dioxin.. one of the "most toxic man-made substances". How many people have died from it? Is it bad, yes. Does it kill on contact? No.

Second hand smoke is another. If the hype is true, it should be pumped into bombs and dropped on Afghanistan. Taliban in the caves will instantly die.

C-grunt

12-18-11, 18:58

So. M855A1 has been in theater for some time right? Any reports on how it's doing?