View Full Version : Interesting perspective on M855A1 by retired SF
Hammer_Man
08-15-22, 14:32
Retired Green Beret Jeff Gurwitch gives a brief technical and historical overview of the M855A1 cartridge, and his take on its’ performance compared to M855 green tip. It’s a half hour video, but I found it pretty interesting.
https://youtu.be/oii00t5csVA
Cool. I'm going to watch this tonight.
Cool. I'm going to watch this tonight.
If the basic crib notes are, "its not magic and the new ammo isn't much better", please let us know. I don't have the free time to watch each video posted here.
If the basic crib notes are, "its not magic and the new ammo isn't much better", please let us know. I don't have the free time to watch each video posted here.
Will do. I watch this kind of "long form" stuff when I'm working out. Otherwise, I'd never watch a Youtube video over 5 minutes in length.
Watched it. Pretty good video from a guy who has been there. Bottom line: Minimal accuracy improvement. Zero lethality improvement. Some penetration improvement that was meaningless in ganistan.
The guy was a WAY bigger fan of Mk262.... a man after my own heart!
Also the A1 ammo was an ass ache cuz the couldn't train with it in the shoot house or on the long range steel. It did enough damage that they had to go back to M855 to train with.
But hey, some Big Defense contractors / Ammo company got PAID!!!!!!
Contracting 101, making dollars off the military and it's stupid ideas!!!!
My buddies who are still in or recently got out have good things to say about the ammo. They said there was a noticeable improvement in accuracy and no complaints about lethality. Though none of the guys I served with ever had complaints about the lethality of M855 either. Not saying there were no problems with the bullet. We shot up enough cars and trucks in Iraq that I would have happily taken the M855A1. Though being a mech unit we had plenty of 7.62 and 25mm for vehicles.
Molon has contradicted a few points made in this video over on P-F FWIW. I absolutely noticed an accuracy difference.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
From the video . . .
“the Army’s acceptable accuracy for the M16A2, with green-tip or M855, is a 6.8” group at 600 yards”
False. The mil-spec referenced does not specify “a 6.8” group at 600 yards”. The mil-spec for M855 calls for an average vertical standard deviation and an average horizontal standard deviation of 6.8” at 600 yards. The average vertical and horizontal standard deviations are completely different metrics of measuring the radial dispersion of shot groups than the extreme spread. Also, the referenced mil-spec is not for the “M16A2, with green-tip or M855.” The referenced mil-spec using the average vertical and horizontal standard deviations is for M855 fired from machine-rested, bolt-action heavy test barrels.
The video continues . . .
“But alternatively, the Army said a 1.8” group at 200 yards in an indoor range and actually that’s pretty feasible.”
That’s not what the “Army said” and no, it’s not “pretty feasible.” A 10-shot group at 200 yards with an extreme spread of 1.8” is 0.86 MOA. The referenced mil-spec does not state “a 1.8” group at 200 yards.” As before, this mil-spec cites the average vertical and horizontal standard deviations as the metric to be used and again this metric is determined using machine-rested bolt-action heavy test barrels.
The actual US mil-spec for the M16A2 firing Lake City M855 calls for a “10-shot group extreme spread” at 100 yards to be within 4.8”.
The table below shows what you can expect for commercially available Lake City M855 when fired from a semi-automatic AR-15 with a NATO chambered, chrome-lined Colt barrel. Some foreign manufactured M855 can do better, but won't remotely come close to averaging an extreme spread of 0.86 MOA.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855_accuracy_table_003-2485154.jpg
…..
Accuracy claims in that video appear to be . . . exaggerated.
M855A1 accuracy claim at 300 yards: 3.2"
group measured in On Target: 8.5"
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855a1_300_yard_accuracy_claim_02-2485387.jpg
M855A1 accuracy claim at 500 yards: 12"
group measured in On Target: 15.3"
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855a1_accuracy_claim_at_500_yards_003-2485388.jpg
M855A1 Accuracy and Velocity
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/coming_2nd_quarter_2022_001-2277645.jpg
M855A1 ammunition is manufactured at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant near Independence, Missouri. The lot of Lake City M855A1 ammunition that was evaluated for this article was manufactured in January of 2021. There were no malfunctions of any kind for this ammunition in any of the four barrels that were used in this evaluation.
M855A1 is packaged in kraft boxes with 30 rounds in each box. The rounds are on stripper clips with 10 rounds per clip.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855a1_stripper_clip_001_resized-2426382.jpg
The M855A1 cartridge has a nominal over-all length of 2.250”. This over-all length gives the A1 projectile a jump of 0.132” to the lands of a Colt 5.56mm NATO chamber.
M855A1 is loaded in Lake City brass. The brass cases have the annealing iris still visible. The headstamp for this lot reads: ”LC - 21” along with the NATO cross. The case-head stamp exhibits the octal station identifiers used on Lake City SCAMP machinery. The primer pocket has four “stab” crimps and a minimal amount of sealant. The case mouth has a generous amount of asphalt sealant and is crimped into a cannelure on the bullet.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855a1_cartridge_004-2423081.jpg
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855a1_headstamp_001-2423084.jpg
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/lake_city_scamp_octal__numbering_03_resi-2209035.jpg
Lake City M855A1 ammunition is charged with the St. Marks Powder SMP-842, which is a flattened ball powder. Sampled powder charges had an average weight of 26.4 grains.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855_powder_022-2423083.jpg
The M855A1 bullet is considered a 62 grain round, however, sampled bullets had an average weight of 62.6 grains. The M855A1 projectile is constructed from three different components; a solid copper core, an exposed steel penetrator and a reverse-drawn copper jacket that holds the other two components together. Since this bullet does not have a lead core, the only thing that fragments upon terminal impact is the copper jacket.
It has been reported that with early lots of M855A1, it was possible to “spin” the steel penetrator inside the copper jacket with your fingers. This did not occur with any of the current rounds that I sampled.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855a1_projectile_components_003-2423082.jpg
The M855A1 projectile has a lower specific gravity than conventional lead-core, copper jacketed bullets and is significantly longer than the legacy M855 projectile. The A1 projectiles that I sampled had a nominal length of 1.00”.
According to Ballistic Performance of Rifle Bullets by Bryan Litz the average G1 ballistic coefficient of M855A1 is 0.291 and the average G7 ballistic coefficient is 0.149. The same reference states that M855A1 has a nominal gyroscopic stability factor of 1.41 when fired from a barrel with a 1:8" twist and 1.85 when fired from a barrel with a 1:7" twist.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855a1_compared_to_other_62_grain_bullet-2427074.jpg
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855a1_vs_77_smk_003_resized-2423091.jpg
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855a1_vs_69_smk_vs_70_tsx_002-2436827.jpg
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855a1_specific_gravity_004-2423090.jpg
Velocity
I chronographed the Lake City M855A1 ammunition from a semi-automatic AR-15 with a chrome-lined, NATO chambered, 20” Colt A4 barrel with a 1:7” twist.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/colt_a4_barrel_004_resized_b-2426802.jpg
Chronographing was conducted using an Oehler 35-P chronograph with “proof screen” technology. The Oehler 35-P chronograph is actually two chronographs in one package that takes two separate chronograph readings for each shot fired and then utilizes its onboard computer to analyze the data to determine if there is any statistically significant abnormality in the readings. If the readings are suspect, the chronograph “flags” the shot to let you know that the data is invalid. There was no invalid data flagged during this testing.
The velocities stated below are the muzzle velocities as calculated from the instrumental velocities using Oehler’s Ballistic Explorer software program. The strings of fire consisted of 10 rounds over the chronograph.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/oehler_chronograph_32-1336391.jpg
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/oehler_computer_02-1336390.jpg
Each round was single-loaded and cycled into the chamber from a magazine fitted with a single-load follower. The bolt locked-back after each shot allowing the chamber to cool in between each shot. This technique was used to mitigate the possible influence of “chamber-soak” on velocity data. Each new shot was fired in a consistent manner after hitting the bolt release. Atmospheric conditions were monitored and recorded using a Kestrel 4000 Pocket Weather Tracker.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/kestrel_4000_21-1336387.jpg
Atmospheric conditions
Temperature: 76 degrees F
Humidity: 47%
Barometric pressure: 30.09 inches of Hg
Elevation: 950 feet above sea level
The muzzle velocity for the 10-shot string of the Lake City M855A1 ammunition fired from the 20” Colt barrel was 3131 FPS with a standard deviation of 18 FPS and a coefficient of variation of 0.59%.
For those of you who might not be familiar with the coefficient of variation (CV), it is the standard deviation, divided by the mean (average) muzzle velocity and then multiplied by 100 and expressed as a percentage. It allows for the comparison of the uniformity of velocity between loads in different velocity spectrums; e.g. 77 grain loads running around 2,650 fps compared to 55 grain loads running around 3,250 fps.
For comparison, the mil-spec for M193 allows for a coefficient of variation of approximately 1.2%, while one of my best 77 grain OTM hand-loads, with a muzzle velocity of 2639 PFS and a standard deviation of 4 FPS, has a coefficient of variation of 0.15%.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/stnadard_deviation_of_4_fps_01-1336393.jpg
I also chronographed the Lake City M855A1 ammunition from three different 14.5” barrels in the same manner as described above for the 20” Colt barrel. Chronographing of the 14.5” barrels was conducted immediately after the chronographing for the 20” barrel.
A 10-shot string of the Lake City M855A1 fired from a 14.5” Hodge Defense barrel had a muzzle velocity of 2939 FPS with a standard deviation of 23 FPS.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/hodge_barrel_004-2277644.jpg
A 10-shot string of the M855A1 fired from a 14.5” Colt M4A1 SOCOM barrel had a muzzle velocity of 2949 FPS with a standard deviation of 17 FPS.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/colt_m4a1_socom_barrel_040-2277643.jpg
A 10-shot string of the M855A1 fired from the Bravo Company 14.5" ELW barrel had a muzzle velocity of 2966 FPS with a standard deviation of 19 FPS.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/bcm_elw_barrel_002-2426291.jpg
continued on the next page . . . .
The muzzle velocities for the Lake City M855A1 are summarized in the table below.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855a1_muzzle_velocities_002-2426796.jpg
For comparison, the next two tables show the muzzle velocities for legacy military 5.56mm ammunition that also uses 62 grain projectiles: M855 and MK318 Mod 0.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/IMI_m855_muzzle_velocities-2423077.jpg
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/mk318_chronograph_data_white_box_vs_brow-2423073.jpg
Accuracy
I conducted an accuracy (technically, precision) evaluation of the Lake City M855A1 ammunition following my usual protocol. This accuracy evaluation used statistically significant shot-group sizes and every single shot in a fired group was included in the measurements. There was absolutely no use of any group-reduction techniques (e.g. fliers, target movement, Butterfly Shots).
The shooting set-up will be described in detail below. As many of the significant variables as was practicable were controlled for. Also, a control group was fired from the test-rifle used in the evaluation using match-grade, hand-loaded ammunition; in order to demonstrate the capability of the barrel. Pictures of shot-groups are posted for documentation.
Shooting was conducted from a concrete bench-rest from a distance of 100 yards (confirmed with a laser rangefinder.) The barrel used in the evaluation was free-floated. The free-float handguard of the rifle rested in a Sinclair Windage Benchrest, while the stock of the rifle rested in a Protektor bunny-ear rear bag. Sighting was accomplished via a Leupold VARI-X III set at 25x magnification and adjusted to be parallax-free at 100 yards. A mirage shade was used. Wind conditions on the shooting range were continuously monitored using a Wind Probe. The set-up was very similar to that pictured below.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/lothar_walther_ar15_on_bench_03-2211995-2427000.jpg
The Wind Probe.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/wind_probe_2016_01_framedb-1342522.jpg
The test vehicle for this accuracy evaluation was one of my semi-automatic precision AR-15s with a 20” stainless-steel Lothar-Walther barrel. The barrel has a 223 Wylde chamber with a 1:8” twist. Prior to firing the Lake City M855A1, I fired a 10-shot control group using match-grade hand-loads topped with the Sierra 77 grain MatchKing (without a cannelure). That group had an extreme spread of 0.56”.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/lothar_walther_barrel_21_resized-1336364.jpg
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/lothar_barrel_crown_02_resized-1297385-1336365.jpg
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/lothar_walther_barrel_free_floated_05-12-1336366.jpg
the control group . .
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/77_smk_10_shot_group_lothar_walther_barr-2423064.jpg
Three 10-shot groups of the Lake City M855A1 ammunition were fired in a row with the resulting extreme spreads:
1.78”
2.65”
1.78”
for a 10-shot group average extreme spread of 2.07”. The three 10-shot groups were over-layed on each other using RSI Shooting Lab to form a 30-shot composite group. The mean radius for the 30-shot composite group was 0.63”.
The smallest 10-shot group . . .
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/M855A1_10_shot_group_at_100_yards_001-2423067.jpg
The 30-shot composite group . . .
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855a1_30_shot_composite_group_002-2423079.jpg
M855A1 compared to other mil-spec loads . . .
https://i.ibb.co/yVsqyK5/m855a1-vs-m193-vs-m855-30-shot-composite-groups-101.jpg
In the category of useless trivia, the M855A1 bullet cuts the cleanest holes in paper targets of any 5.56mm/223 Remington ammunition that I’ve ever tested. It’s like wad-cutters for the AR-15.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855a1_bullets_holes_001-2423080.jpg
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855a1_wadcutter_006-2428297.jpg
I also fired a 10-shot group at 100 yards off of sand-bags from each of the 14.5” barrels that were used in chronographing the M855A1 ammunition.
A 10-shot group fired from the Colt M4A1 SOCOM barrel (https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/Colt-M4A1-SOCOM-Barrel-Accuracy-Another-Look/118-762088/) had an extreme spread of 1.85”.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855a1_colt_m4a1_10_shot_group_at_100_ya-2423069.jpg
A 10-shot group fired from the Bravo Company 14.5" ELW barrel (https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/Bravo-Company-14-5-ELW-Accuracy-A-Quick-Look/118-761690/) had an extreme spread of 2.15”.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/M855a1_bcm_elw_10_shot_group_at_100_yard-2423068.jpg
A 10-shot group fired from the 14.5" Hodge Defense barrel (https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/Hodge-Defense-14-5-Barrel-Accuracy-A-Quick-Look/118-769904/) had an extreme spread of 2.51".
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855a1_hodge_defense_barrel_10_shot_grou-2426936.jpg
fired cases
left: from a 5.56 Colt M4A1
right: from a 223 Wylde
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855a1_fired_caseheads_left_colt_right_2-2434136.jpg
Lastly, for any Internet Commandos in our viewing audience today, here’s a pic of a sub ¾ MOA group of the Lake City M855A1 ammunition fired at 100 yards. The group has an extreme spread of 0.59”.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/M855a1_internet_commando_group-2423071.jpg
…
Hammer_Man
08-15-22, 19:54
@Molon, thanks for posting all of that. It’s good to have data to support the claim that M855A1 is more accurate than M855. What’s also impressive to me, is the extreme spread of the Colt SOCOM barrel being as good as it is. :cool: I absolutely love those barrels, as they always shoot really well for me. I’d be curious to see how a govt. profile M4 barrel would perform in a similar test.
I think he's placing too little value on the light barrier penetration. Armor penetration is nice and all, but turning your enemy's cover into mere concealment is maybe even better. I think M855A1 is a nice improvement over M855, especially since the price is better. I'm not a big fan of things designed to fragment, but the copper base seems to get plenty of penetration so I'll give it a pass based on the other stuff it does.
Someone gave Molon a call! :cool:
Data is cool, but seeing Molon post is cooler
Data is cool, but seeing Molon post is cooler
Indeed. Welcome back! Please stay.
Been awhile since we've had a knowledge dump like that. I learned some stuff.
Molon, I always appreciate the information you share. Thanks for posting!
Molon, welcome back, I learned something new today - thank you!
Outstanding post as always.
vicious_cb
08-16-22, 01:41
I guess being "retired SF" doesnt exactly make you an ammo expert. :rolleyes:
I’m not retired, but I like it. Its an improvement in every way over M855. 68704
Straight Shooter
08-16-22, 09:06
I’m not retired, but I like it. Its an improvement in every way over M855. 68704
So, a hopefully NOT dumb question.
The gent in the video says after 13 years the 855A1 round is being replaced by a 6.8 round..i cant understand what he says it is, other than 6.8.
If thats the case, will ammo makers keep making 855A1 for civies like they did 193 & 855...and will mil surplus of 855A1 ever hit the market?
Whats the cost of a round of 855A1 vs a round of 855 green tip?
Molon: Great info dump as usual.
OT:
I have to say I was more than a little disappointed with this video compared to some of his others. He always has a bias, with the information slanted by his own perceptions and experiences, but this one seemed more of a problem than normal. He definitely falls into the "Cult of 262" more than I was hoping he would, and that leads him to ignore any other factors than what 262 shines at. 7 years ago, he would have fit in with the "M855A1 is bad; inaccurate and breaks guns!" crowd, but people like Molon have been showing otherwise. The complete lack of any reference to terminal performance other than "I'm not being attacked by car doors!" was pretty disappointing as well, especially when he immediately complained about how it wasn't able to pierce modern plates and that's something the Army should have looked at. Which is it? Barrier and armor penetration matters, or it doesn't?
So, a hopefully NOT dumb question.
The gent in the video says after 13 years the 855A1 round is being replaced by a 6.8 round..i cant understand what he says it is, other than 6.8.
If thats the case, will ammo makers keep making 855A1 for civies like they did 193 & 855...and will mil surplus of 855A1 ever hit the market?
Hopefully not a stupid answer that contains info that you already know:
6.8x51, eventually will be commercially available as Sig's .277 Fury cartridge. As far as I know, M855A1's successor hasn't been type-classified yet, but it appears to be a bullet very similar to M855A1/M80A1 but scaled to 6.8/.277".
I very much doubt we will see M855A1 hit the market in any significant numbers after 6.8 comes out. We would have seen it already if there were plans for it to become a commercially viable cartridge. Not sure if it is legal or marketing reasons for its absence, but something is keeping the cartridge out of circulation in any significant amount. I'd love to be able to stock up on both M855A1 and M80A1, but that's not really an option.
Straight Shooter
08-16-22, 13:55
Molon: Great info dump as usual.
OT:
I have to say I was more than a little disappointed with this video compared to some of his others. He always has a bias, with the information slanted by his own perceptions and experiences, but this one seemed more of a problem than normal. He definitely falls into the "Cult of 262" more than I was hoping he would, and that leads him to ignore any other factors than what 262 shines at. 7 years ago, he would have fit in with the "M855A1 is bad; inaccurate and breaks guns!" crowd, but people like Molon have been showing otherwise. The complete lack of any reference to terminal performance other than "I'm not being attacked by car doors!" was pretty disappointing as well, especially when he immediately complained about how it wasn't able to pierce modern plates and that's something the Army should have looked at. Which is it? Barrier and armor penetration matters, or it doesn't?
Hopefully not a stupid answer that contains info that you already know:
6.8x51, eventually will be commercially available as Sig's .277 Fury cartridge. As far as I know, M855A1's successor hasn't been type-classified yet, but it appears to be a bullet very similar to M855A1/M80A1 but scaled to 6.8/.277".
I very much doubt we will see M855A1 hit the market in any significant numbers after 6.8 comes out. We would have seen it already if there were plans for it to become a commercially viable cartridge. Not sure if it is legal or marketing reasons for its absence, but something is keeping the cartridge out of circulation in any significant amount. I'd love to be able to stock up on both M855A1 and M80A1, but that's not really an option.
I certainly appreciate that answer A17. Youd think, or I do anyway, the gov. would want to try to recoup that $100 million R&D it spent bringing the 855A1 to life. Im good with what I have tho, Id like to have a couple hundred 855A1 rounds to play with.
I certainly appreciate that answer A17. Youd think, or I do anyway, the gov. would want to try to recoup that $100 million R&D it spent bringing the 855A1 to life. Im good with what I have tho, Id like to have a couple hundred 855A1 rounds to play with.
855A1 isn’t going anywhere. The army is not ditching 5.56.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Great read, bullet intel nerd heaven.
Watched it. Pretty good video from a guy who has been there. Bottom line: Minimal accuracy improvement. Zero lethality improvement. Some penetration improvement that was meaningless in ganistan.
The guy was a WAY bigger fan of Mk262.... a man after my own heart!
Also the A1 ammo was an ass ache cuz the couldn't train with it in the shoot house or on the long range steel. It did enough damage that they had to go back to M855 to train with.
Thanks. I am a large believer that technology will allow us to build a better bullet, but it appears we aren't there yet.
vicious_cb
08-16-22, 17:04
I’m not retired, but I like it. Its an improvement in every way over M855. 68704
Exactly, this 30 min long spiel filled with misinformation would make you believe A1 is crap when its quite the opposite. People forget that SS109 was shoved down our throats by the Belgians and other Euro NATO members. I only wish is that A1 wasnt a "green" bullet and probably fragment alot better with a lead core.
Molon: Great info dump as usual.
OT:
I have to say I was more than a little disappointed with this video compared to some of his others. He always has a bias, with the information slanted by his own perceptions and experiences, but this one seemed more of a problem than normal. He definitely falls into the "Cult of 262" more than I was hoping he would, and that leads him to ignore any other factors than what 262 shines at. 7 years ago, he would have fit in with the "M855A1 is bad; inaccurate and breaks guns!" crowd, but people like Molon have been showing otherwise. The complete lack of any reference to terminal performance other than "I'm not being attacked by car doors!" was pretty disappointing as well, especially when he immediately complained about how it wasn't able to pierce modern plates and that's something the Army should have looked at. Which is it? Barrier and armor penetration matters, or it doesn't?
Hopefully not a stupid answer that contains info that you already know:
6.8x51, eventually will be commercially available as Sig's .277 Fury cartridge. As far as I know, M855A1's successor hasn't been type-classified yet, but it appears to be a bullet very similar to M855A1/M80A1 but scaled to 6.8/.277".
I very much doubt we will see M855A1 hit the market in any significant numbers after 6.8 comes out. We would have seen it already if there were plans for it to become a commercially viable cartridge. Not sure if it is legal or marketing reasons for its absence, but something is keeping the cartridge out of circulation in any significant amount. I'd love to be able to stock up on both M855A1 and M80A1, but that's not really an option.
Wasn't a company called Liberty Ammunition (or similar) involved with a lawsuit against DoD for infringing on it's design of M855A1? Or is it another round I'm thinking of?
Molon for the win. Thank you sir. I love your contriburions.
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
MistoGators
08-16-22, 21:19
Is there a generally accepted fragmentation threshold for M855A1 (like how 2700 FPS is for both M193 and M855)? I'm having a hard time finding something concrete.
vicious_cb
08-16-22, 22:52
Is there a generally accepted fragmentation threshold for M855A1 (like how 2700 FPS is for both M193 and M855)? I'm having a hard time finding something concrete.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPQOzuceTnk
Also the A1 ammo was an ass ache cuz the couldn't train with it in the shoot house or on the long range steel. It did enough damage that they had to go back to M855 to train with.
The fact it was too hard on targets but m855 was not indicated a real performance improvement in barrier penetration, to me at least.
davidjinks
08-17-22, 09:02
Retired Green Beret Jeff Gurwitch gives a brief technical and historical overview of the M855A1 cartridge, and his take on its’ performance compared to M855 green tip. It’s a half hour video, but I found it pretty interesting.
https://youtu.be/oii00t5csVA
Not gonna watch the video. I was part of the reliability testing, magazine testing, and PIP.
I will never fire 855A1 out of any of my weapons no matter the enhanced geometry of the followers. I won’t comment on anything else because I not sure what’s part of the NDA.
Wasn't a company called Liberty Ammunition (or similar) involved with a lawsuit against DoD for infringing on it's design of M855A1? Or is it another round I'm thinking of?
I've heard similar but I am not aware of any specifics. If it was simply a case of the DoD infringing on patents, I'm sure a deal could have been worked out that would have let the Civ company produce and sell the round (or at least the bullet) commercially, using the "XM855A1" designation. I tend to wonder if the round has been labeled as "armor-piercing" and thus shelved like the ATF/DOJ has tried to do to regular old green-tip multiple times over the years. Pure speculation, but it would fit.
Not gonna watch the video. I was part of the reliability testing, magazine testing, and PIP.
I will never fire 855A1 out of any of my weapons no matter the enhanced geometry of the followers. I won’t comment on anything else because I not sure what’s part of the NDA.
Didn't they drop the pressure a bit after that initial testing, though?
davidjinks
08-17-22, 11:06
Didn't they drop the pressure a bit after that initial testing, though?
That is open source information and yes they did. The original pressures were destroying barrels within 5k-8k rounds. There’s were several issues were the A2 birdcage was being torn apart.
I've heard similar but I am not aware of any specifics. If it was simply a case of the DoD infringing on patents, I'm sure a deal could have been worked out that would have let the Civ company produce and sell the round (or at least the bullet) commercially, using the "XM855A1" designation. I tend to wonder if the round has been labeled as "armor-piercing" and thus shelved like the ATF/DOJ has tried to do to regular old green-tip multiple times over the years. Pure speculation, but it would fit.
It's in no way armor piercing according to the law, but they're nevertheless using the patent to do everything in their power to keep us (the people's whose money was used to develop and manufacture it, and who are constitutionally guaranteed the right to have the arms of our military) from being able to buy it.
It's basically in the same category as 5.7 black tip. 100% legal to own, but being internally controlled by the manufacturer. You can get it through backdoor channels, but it's extremely expensive.
davidjinks
08-17-22, 11:12
It's in no way armor piercing according to the law, but they're nevertheless using the patent to do everything in their power to keep us (the people's whose money was used to develop and manufacture it, and who are constitutionally guaranteed the right to have the arms of our military) from being able to buy it.
It's basically in the same category as 5.7 black tip. 100% legal to own, but being internally controlled by the manufacturer. You can get it through backdoor channels, but it's extremely expensive.
Directly from the DOD, I had to meet with the lead security specialist, there has been no official sale/ release of the new EPR rounds in either 5.56mm or 7.62mm. The rounds/projectiles that are being sold on the market have either been stolen or contracts have been breached in regards to certain entities buying it for official use and turning around and selling it.
Appreciate Feedback and comments
Molon posts are the same one he posted to arfcom and really only support my argument that M855A1 is not "match like"
Like the Army claims. Which was the point of the video dispelling Army claims about M855A1.
Sure Im bias towards MK262, Il take better accuracy any day when it comes to fighting rifle ammo.
Again, appreciate comments and the interest in the video
Jeff G.
Hammer_Man
08-17-22, 12:45
Appreciate Feedback and comments
Molon posts are the same one he posted to arfcom and really only support my argument that M855A1 is not "match like"
Like the Army claims. Which was the point of the video dispelling Army claims about M855A1.
Sure Im bias towards MK262, Il take better accuracy any day when it comes to fighting rifle ammo.
Again, appreciate comments and the interest in the video
Jeff G.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and experiences. I find your videos both informative and entertaining, especially when you take a historic look at some of the equipment that has been used throughout the GWOT. Equally nice to get feedback on a cartridge I’ve had little exposure to outside of a 300 meter qualifying range.
Wasn't a company called Liberty Ammunition (or similar) involved with a lawsuit against DoD for infringing on it's design of M855A1? Or is it another round I'm thinking of?
Liberty Ammunition sued the federal government for patent infringement and breach of contract in regard to M855A1.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/liberty_ammunition_lawsuit_against_feder-2438886.jpg
....
davidjinks
08-17-22, 15:34
855A1 isn’t going anywhere. The army is not ditching 5.56.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I thought the same thing. But it’s happening. The integration phases have already been set. Within 20 years (give or take a couple here and there) 6.8x51 will be the new issued round. NATO will start a phased process as well. 5.56 will still be around but it won’t be the mainstay.
I thought the same thing. But it’s happening. The integration phases have already been set. Within 20 years (give or take a couple here and there) 6.8x51 will be the new issued round. NATO will start a phased process as well. 5.56 will still be around but it won’t be the mainstay.
I love how they just threw a giant wrench into everybody's supply chains during a time when the threat of major war is extremely high, and also during a time when we're experiencing horrible supply chain disruptions and material shortages. And the fact that they can't even train with the cartridge they issue only makes that so much worse.
The way I really see this going is they'll just use it replace 7.62 and most guys will still be carrying 5.56 for the foreseeable future. I also think the hybrid case high pressure version is going to cause so many problems they'll ditch it and just end up using the standard version.
I love how they just threw a giant wrench into everybody's supply chains during a time when the threat of major war is extremely high, and also during a time when we're experiencing horrible supply chain disruptions and material shortages. And the fact that they can't even train with the cartridge they issue only makes that so much worse.
The way I really see this going is they'll just use it replace 7.62 and most guys will still be carrying 5.56 for the foreseeable future. I also think the hybrid case high pressure version is going to cause so many problems they'll ditch it and just end up using the standard version.
I would lay a future paycheck on that! Just like the M855A1 was "toned down" this round will be also.
I thought the same thing. But it’s happening. The integration phases have already been set. Within 20 years (give or take a couple here and there) 6.8x51 will be the new issued round. NATO will start a phased process as well. 5.56 will still be around but it won’t be the mainstay.
Ok well anything could happen in 20 years…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
vicious_cb
08-17-22, 19:35
I thought the same thing. But it’s happening. The integration phases have already been set. Within 20 years (give or take a couple here and there) 6.8x51 will be the new issued round. NATO will start a phased process as well. 5.56 will still be around but it won’t be the mainstay.
Id be very interested in what a 6.8mm EPR round could do. Especially when they start cranking up the pressures and changing the penetrator material.
Appreciate Feedback and comments
Molon posts are the same one he posted to arfcom and really only support my argument that M855A1 is not "match like"
Like the Army claims. Which was the point of the video dispelling Army claims about M855A1.
Sure Im bias towards MK262, Il take better accuracy any day when it comes to fighting rifle ammo.
Again, appreciate comments and the interest in the video
Jeff G.
And then Jeff Gurwitch shows up.
Thanks for dropping in, I loved your articles on the evolution of your carbines on deployment. Eventually I’ll get to a class with now that I’m in NC.
Appreciate Feedback and comments
Molon posts are the same one he posted to arfcom and really only support my argument that M855A1 is not "match like"
Like the Army claims. Which was the point of the video dispelling Army claims about M855A1.
Sure Im bias towards MK262, Il take better accuracy any day when it comes to fighting rifle ammo.
Again, appreciate comments and the interest in the video
Jeff G.
That's an understandable point of view coming from someone with your perspective as a member of an elite infantry unit. You guys are in the top 1% or better of combat marksmen, and cost isn't generally a consideration. But just like the rank and file wasn't getting 77gr when M855 was around, I don't think it was in the cards for them to get Mk262 as a replacement for it, so I think it was a win for them getting something they could afford that was better both terminally and ballistically.
davidjinks
08-18-22, 13:46
Forget it
BoringGuy45
08-18-22, 15:22
I thought the same thing. But it’s happening. The integration phases have already been set. Within 20 years (give or take a couple here and there) 6.8x51 will be the new issued round. NATO will start a phased process as well. 5.56 will still be around but it won’t be the mainstay.
20 years? I thought they were trying to get all the Army combat units equipped with XM5 and XM250s within two years?
Also, are the other major NATO countries currently working on 6.8x51 rifles as well? Or are they considering the adoption of the XM5 as well?
20 years? I thought they were trying to get all the Army combat units equipped with XM5 and XM250s within two years?
Also, are the other major NATO countries currently working on 6.8x51 rifles as well? Or are they considering the adoption of the XM5 as well?The US Army's plan (right now) is only infantry, Special Forces, cavalry scouts, and combat engineers -- those most likely to be in direct-fire contact/combat.
Several Euro companies already have rifle designs that can-will take .277 Fury / 6.8 x 51.
As both rifle and ammo are still "XM" experimental phase equipment, don't put carts before horses quite yet.
MistoGators
08-18-22, 21:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPQOzuceTnk
Wow, so almost 4x the range of M855 out of an M4. Most impressive.
BoringGuy45
08-18-22, 22:30
The US Army's plan (right now) is only infantry, Special Forces, cavalry scouts, and combat engineers -- those most likely to be in direct-fire contact/combat.
Several Euro companies already have rifle designs that can-will take .277 Fury / 6.8 x 51.
As both rifle and ammo are still "XM" experimental phase equipment, don't put carts before horses quite yet.
That's kind of what I was figuring. We keep hearing "it's a done deal. They are fully going forward with this..." but with a lot of questions around this whole NGSW still to be answered, my guess is more that this is simply the furthest along a potential replacement for the M16/M4 has gotten since the M16 was adopted.
Ned Christiansen
08-18-22, 23:01
With the return of Molon, the IQ of M4C went back up several points. Welcome back!
Not gonna watch the video. I was part of the reliability testing, magazine testing, and PIP.
I will never fire 855A1 out of any of my weapons no matter the enhanced geometry of the followers. I won’t comment on anything else because I not sure what’s part of the NDA.
That's the money quote right there, if a rich uncle is buying your rifle use it, otherwise.... I would suspect accelerated wear is the main reason you won't see it on the commercial market. Plus the fact that using it in non mil-spec firearms/magazines could lead to issues, what would it do in a Mini-14 or a el cheapo AR. Basically you have a round tailored to work in a limited group of firearms with specific magazines, I don't think we will ever see this for sell over the counter.
As is often the case, I would expect unforeseen issues to crop up when the XM5/XM250 weapons get into the hands of troops.
... if a rich uncle is buying your rifle use it, otherwise.... I would suspect accelerated wear is the main reason you won't see it on the commercial market. Plus the fact that using it in non mil-spec firearms/magazines could lead to issues, what would it do in a Mini-14 or a el cheapo AR. Basically you have a round tailored to work in a limited group of firearms with specific magazines, I don't think we will ever see this for sell over the counter.Meh. It's ammo, and all machines wear.
It takes half and hour, tops (if you're hung over) to swap barrels.
If you've not shot out at least one barrel, you don't know your rifle.
I've shot enough of it that I prefer it over Green Tip. It definitely doesn't shoot as straight as 77s, but it's better than GI M193 and M855. At targets around 200 yards, or 300 if you're shooting E-type silhouettes it doesn't matter.
Oh I'm not saying I wouldn't shoot it if I could find any, not sure if any civie could source enough to shoot and cause problems, but I would only shoot in mil-spec barrels and use EPM's or PMAG's, And you are correct that replacing parts on AR's is no big deal as a matter of fact with the possible exception of barrels right now is a golden age for AR's, many quality parts are very reasonably priced and any prudent person should be maintaining a fairly deep spare parts inventory IMO.
Beat Trash
08-19-22, 12:43
IF I could buy M855A1 as a civilian, I’d stack it deep.
But until then, I’ll train with what is available.
MistoGators
08-19-22, 14:14
IF I could buy M855A1 as a civilian, I’d stack it deep.
But until then, I’ll train with what is available.
I wonder how much it would cost per round if it was available for us.
Appreciate Feedback and comments
Molon posts are the same one he posted to arfcom and really only support my argument that M855A1 is not "match like"
Like the Army claims. Which was the point of the video dispelling Army claims about M855A1.
Sure Im bias towards MK262, Il take better accuracy any day when it comes to fighting rifle ammo.
Again, appreciate comments and the interest in the video
Jeff G.
I whole heartedly agree.
IF I could buy M855A1 as a civilian, I’d stack it deep.
But until then, I’ll train with what is available.
I'd buy a little to play with and have for reference, but the round doesn't do anything special that I want/need. And I damned sure don't want our long range steel getting chingered up. But to your point... we can't get it, so why sweat it?
Now if it were reversed, and we could buy 855a1 and Mk262 couldn't be had, I'd move mountains to get that stuff!
I have ~ 700+ rounds of the M855A1. Paid out the ass for them though. That's 3+ "basic combat loads". Have a plastic milk carton of mags like PMAG Gen3's and Surefeeds. Obviously they can be used with other ammo but I keep them separate for that reason.
One AR has a Hodge 14.5" barrel ostensibly made for M855A1 (gas port-wise). It'll shoot other quality ammo but you gotta watch playing with buffer weights and less-than-M855A1 pressures for proper cycling. With the more recent downloaded M855A1 it isn't as big an issue.
As an aside, I predict that the new 6.8x51mm will eventually be downloaded to the "training ammunition" in that caliber similar to what happened with M855A1. Essentially similar terminal ballistics but with less wear on parts.
I wonder how much it would cost per round if it was available for us.
It's the same price as M855, roughly. So probably about twenty-five cents a round, depending on how much overrun there was at any given time. That's the thing that makes it so great, and why you can't really compare it to expensive rounds like Mk262. While it's not true match grade ammo, its accuracy is very acceptable for the cost, and in light of its capabilities.
Hammer_Man
08-19-22, 21:42
I have ~ 700+ rounds of the M855A1. Paid out the ass for them though. That's 3+ "basic combat loads". Have a plastic milk carton of mags like PMAG Gen3's and Surefeeds. Obviously they can be used with other ammo but I keep them separate for that reason.
One AR has a Hodge 14.5" barrel ostensibly made for M855A1 (gas port-wise). It'll shoot other quality ammo but you gotta watch playing with buffer weights and less-than-M855A1 pressures for proper cycling. With the more recent downloaded M855A1 it isn't as big an issue.
As an aside, I predict that the new 6.8x51mm will eventually be downloaded to the "training ammunition" in that caliber similar to what happened with M855A1. Essentially similar terminal ballistics but with less wear on parts.
Where does one go to acquire these forbidden seeds of justice?
Where does one go to acquire these forbidden seeds of justice?
I got mine off Gunbroker. Couple hundred here, couple hundred there.
https://www.gunbroker.com/Ammunition/search?Keywords=m855a1
Like I said, expensive as hell.
It's the same price as M855, roughly. So probably about twenty-five cents a round, depending on how much overrun there was at any given time. That's the thing that makes it so great, and why you can't really compare it to expensive rounds like Mk262.
Dr Roberts has stated that “M855A1 costs twice as much as Mk318 and is also more expensive than the COTS Mk262 and 70 gr Optimal browntip”
In their law suit against the federal government, Liberty Ammunition stated that they were “entitled to a reasonable royalty on the full selling price for the infringing [round,]” “which is $1.50”.
....
Ned Christiansen
08-20-22, 12:00
Perhaps of interest.
https://i.imgur.com/BP5KW3r.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/LuORazG.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/of3l3Bd.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/yErxj89.jpg
Perhaps of interest.
Yes. Are these your tests? I wonder how 75gr Gold Dot would do.
Ned Christiansen
08-20-22, 16:58
Yes, this was for an article in Guns & Ammo.
A test of the old, "They were in the wire and here comes one at me at a full run. I stitched him square across the chest and he kept coming!"
BoringGuy45
08-20-22, 18:28
Yes, this was for an article in Guns & Ammo.
A test of the old, "They were in the wire and here comes one at me at a full run. I stitched him square across the chest and he kept coming!"
Usually finished with "Then I pulled out my .45 and fired one shot that knocked him flat like a sledgehammer."
Anyone have an idea when they downloaded the M855A1 to it's current level?
Anyone have an idea when they downloaded the M855A1 to it's current level?
I would be interested to know that as well. Less grains? Different powder? And what is the current pressure?
Would also be interested to know what might happen if someone shot A1 from a .223 chamber. The 5.56 dangerous in .223 thing is somewhat exaggerated, but especially with the original A1 I would imagine that danger could be very real.
On that same note, one reason besides the cost that has kept me from buying any A1 is the potential that what's on civ market is the leftover extra spicy stuff that broke bolts.
I would be interested to know that as well. Less grains? Different powder? And what is the current pressure?
Would also be interested to know what might happen if someone shot A1 from a .223 chamber. The 5.56 dangerous in .223 thing is somewhat exaggerated, but especially with the original A1 I would imagine that danger could be very real.
On that same note, one reason besides the cost that has kept me from buying any A1 is the potential that what's on civ market is the leftover extra spicy stuff that broke bolts.
I vaguely recall reading where the pressure had been reduced to ~ 58,000, but don't quote me on that. It was still higher than normal psi for 5.56mm but not as high as the original loading.
Hammer_Man
08-20-22, 20:49
I thought they downloaded it because the original load was chewing up barrels too quickly. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong.
I thought they downloaded it because the original load was chewing up barrels too quickly. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong.
The HK M27 used by the Marine Corps was having the worst of that "chewing up" problem, although the M4A1 had some issues with it also. The EPM and Magpul Gen3 mags pretty much fixed that. However, across the board, increased bolt breakage and barrel wear screamed for some type of solution. That solution ended up being to drop the pressure to a more "acceptable" level which would lessen the breakages and wear.
Hammer_Man
08-21-22, 01:07
The HK M27 used by the Marine Corps was having the worst of that "chewing up" problem, although the M4A1 had some issues with it also. The EPM and Magpul Gen3 mags pretty much fixed that. However, across the board, increased bolt breakage and barrel wear screamed for some type of solution. That solution ended up being to drop the pressure to a more "acceptable" level which would lessen the breakages and wear.
Makes me wonder if switching to a CHF barrel across the board would have negated some of the accelerated wear. Something like the “machine gun steel” CHF barrels FN markets, and supplies to other manufacturers. Makes me wonder if the Remington CHF M4A1 SOCOM barrels CDNN was clearing out as contract overruns were produced as a result of M855A1, but were ultimately scrapped when Remington lost the M4 contract they were awarded.
I do appreciate that the length increase on the 855A1 probably can have some effects with barrel twist and yaw AoA variation eventually, but I am still coming around on 855A1 being potentially better than the Mk318 alternative which was already there and realistically cheaper... but only because we'll wind up at .277Fury as an end state.
Thanks. I am a large believer that technology will allow us to build a better bullet, but it appears we aren't there yet.
The ultimate tradeoff is still that we're trying to hit very specific price points, and that the fundamental wound mechanism is very much velocity dependent to where it doesn't matter a whole lot otherwise. We could make something marginally better, but manufacturing consistency still would trump nearly everything in terms of performance at scale.
For my part, I still wish I could be stacking Mk318 deep for cheap, but overall, this keeps prodding me towards just handloading with whatever 69-77gr load actually makes sense, and continuing to run whatever cheap analog (it was PPU 75gr HPBT) let me try and get the weak part of that equation to stop sucking.
I don't believe barrel wear was the big issue with A1, before the mag fix and pressure drop the tip chewing up lowers and feed ramps and increased parts ware and bolt breakage were the mail issues.
I don't believe barrel wear was the big issue with A1, before the mag fix and pressure drop the tip chewing up lowers and feed ramps and increased parts ware and bolt breakage were the mail issues.Frankly, I think that was over-blown.
I managed 450 M16A2s, M16A4s, and a final transition to M4A1s. These were all hard-use guns for training ROTC cadets in basic function, marksmanship qualification, noise-making (blanks), and combat competition (annual Texas Adjutant General and Army Championship combat matches) -- over-cleaning with segmented GI cleaning rods.
Our ammo allowances are centrally-managed by Big Army, but actual ammunition supply draw point is National Guard, so we drew M855 but also M855A1 as soon as it was available to the stateside force. Managing spot-checking and maintenance, I never saw any difference in major fails or wear-out. Stuff I changed or replaced was typically the same little stuff before annual or bi-annual general support maintenance (lots of ejector port door springs, disconnectors, bent front sights, the occasional lost firing pin retaining [cotter] pin, etc.).
While the M16s were a hodge-podge (lots of older uppers and lowers, with the occasional brand-new barrel), I never saw any that prevented a decent student shooter from qualifying. Before M4A1s we used standard magazines. I never saw wear like on the upper Molon posted.
Hammer_Man
08-21-22, 12:43
Frankly, I think that was over-blown.
I managed 450 M16A2s, M16A4s, and a final transition to M4A1s. These were all hard-use guns for training ROTC cadets in basic function, marksmanship qualification, noise-making (blanks), and combat competition (annual Texas Adjutant General and Army Championship combat matches) -- over-cleaning with segmented GI cleaning rods.
Our ammo allowances are centrally-managed by Big Army, but actual ammunition supply draw point is National Guard, so we drew M855 but also M855A1 as soon as it was available to the stateside force. Managing spot-checking and maintenance, I never saw any difference in major fails or wear-out. Stuff I changed or replaced was typically the same little stuff before annual or bi-annual general support maintenance (lots of ejector port door springs, disconnectors, bent front sights, the occasional lost firing pin retaining [cotter] pin, etc.).
While the M16s were a hodge-podge (lots of older uppers and lowers, with the occasional brand-new barrel), I never saw any that prevented a decent student shooter from qualifying. Before M4A1s we used standard magazines. I never saw wear like on the upper Molon posted.
I worked with a guy that was attached to 19th Group, and he said their armorers were kept pretty busy swapping out worn barrels during their last deployment, due to the new round chewing up barrels. He didn’t mention any catastrophic failures, just barrels wearing out faster. For reference they were running a mix of block 1 and block 2 rifles at the time. I’m not trying to start an argument, just relaying what he told me.
Special Forces and Ranger battalions tend to shoot a lot more than units in the rest of the force. More trigger pulls, more barrels. Simple math.
Leg Army units have their small arms checked, gaged, and maintained by contact teams once they return from deployments.
BoringGuy45
08-21-22, 15:35
I worked with a guy that was attached to 19th Group, and he said their armorers were kept pretty busy swapping out worn barrels during their last deployment, due to the new round chewing up barrels. He didn’t mention any catastrophic failures, just barrels wearing out faster. For reference they were running a mix of block 1 and block 2 rifles at the time. I’m not trying to start an argument, just relaying what he told me.
Was it due to the higher pressure, or the exposed penetrator?
ExplorinInTheWoods
08-21-22, 17:37
I’ve shot a good amount of A1 and I’m not sure if it was the older stuff since this was early 2017 and I don’t remember checking the casing for the manufacturing year but we had a KD range and A1 was printing about 10-12 inches higher at 300m than what the acog BDC hold was. It’s a little bit more accurate than m855 but I think one of the differences is that guys are not using rear bags and magnification when zeroing their guns for work. 77gr mk262 is a good round but unfortunately that is going away as is mk318. A1 tears up steel targets so for urban area of punching through cars or even certain metal doors I can see it’s use. For mud walls nothing is getting through that and 7.62 is better for cinder or brick walls.
It is interesting to see two of the more revered members having altering opinions on this round.
Special Forces and Ranger battalions tend to shoot a lot more than units in the rest of the force. More trigger pulls, more barrels. Simple math.
Leg Army units have their small arms checked, gaged, and maintained by contact teams once they return from deployments.
So if you had to pick a specific round to meet all requirements (CQB, distance, penetration, target maybe has body armor) which of the available rounds would you choose? Basically the uber 5.56 round. Not for one mission, but a round that optimally covers just about all scenarios. Jungle, Arctic, distance, barriers, etc. Might come up shorter in some categories than others, but a best all-around choice.
Include M855A1 in your list of choices as it is somewhat (albeit expensively) available to civvies.
Defaultmp3
08-21-22, 18:06
What's with the civilian fascination with trying to get their hands on M855A1? Given the cost of procuring it on the grey market, what advantages does it have over a nice duty round, such as Gold Dot, Federal Tactical Bonded, Hornady LE's better stuff, etc.?
What's with the civilian fascination with trying to get their hands on M855A1? Given the cost of procuring it on the grey market, what advantages does it have over a nice duty round, such as Gold Dot, Federal Tactical Bonded, Hornady LE's better stuff, etc.?
Another potential tool in the toolbox, that's all.
Are you a cop? i.e. can you get it from your agency?
What's with the civilian fascination with trying to get their hands on M855A1? Given the cost of procuring it on the grey market, what advantages does it have over a nice duty round, such as Gold Dot, Federal Tactical Bonded, Hornady LE's better stuff, etc.?
Were it available from legitimate sources, for the same price as M855, I would stack it deep. But you're right, going through backdoor channels and paying 2 bucks a round is highly problematic at best. I'm not even sure you can call it gray market. There's good reason to believe that most if not all of it is actually stolen.
It is a shame, though, because it's a truly outstanding cartridge for the price (the actual price, not the inflated black market prices). Nothing else like it on the market that even comes close, at any price. You can find bullets that are more accurate, but at great cost and are poor penetrators.
The_War_Wagon
08-21-22, 19:54
If the basic crib notes are, "its not magic and the new ammo isn't much better", please let us know. I don't have the free time to watch each video posted here.
Is "green ammo" better than green Tipped ammo! As in most things in life - much depends on the shooter.
What's with the civilian fascination with trying to get their hands on M855A1? Given the cost of procuring it on the grey market, what advantages does it have over a nice duty round, such as Gold Dot, Federal Tactical Bonded, Hornady LE's better stuff, etc.?
Never understood that myself.
You can get 70gr TTSX loads for cheaper, why not do that?
Never understood that myself.
You can get 70gr TTSX loads for cheaper, why not do that?
Might have some increased performance over FMJ in window glass and car skin, but it's not going to do what M855A1 can do. You're talking about a copper HP, vs. a hardened steel penetrator. A1 can defeat a lot of armor that solid copper bullets can't.
You know, that also makes me wonder about A1's performance against soft armor at long range. IIIA will stop just about any FMJ when it falls below about 2k fps, so at 300 yards or so it starts becoming pretty effective. But given the sharp tip on A1 it might just sail right through even at much lower velocities. Soft armor performs very poorly against anything sharp. Even an arrow fired from a longbow will sail right through it.
So if you had to pick a specific round to meet all requirements (CQB, distance, penetration, target maybe has body armor) which of the available rounds would you choose? Basically the uber 5.56 round. Not for one mission, but a round that optimally covers just about all scenarios. Jungle, Arctic, distance, barriers, etc. Might come up shorter in some categories than others, but a best all-around choice.
Include M855A1 in your list of choices as it is somewhat (albeit expensively) available to civvies.If I was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and we had a North American tungsten source, I'd say standardize M995 Armor Piercing as the Army load.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/18978/M995_jpg-2498020.JPG
https://youtu.be/AJOJ6vWGMRc?t=81
It is precise, heavy (doesn't get blown around by wind nearly as much as 55 and 62-grainers, has enough inertia to go 600 yards easy at sea level in 95-degree heat, enough ass to hurt someone's feelings in armor, and punches deep through tissue), and works in legacy weapons we have in hand, right now, today, NATO compatible. Like M855 and A1 it'll tear up silhouettes and kill house steel.
vicious_cb
08-21-22, 21:53
If I was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and we had a North American tungsten source, I'd say standardize M995 Armor Piercing as the Army load.
It is precise, heavy (doesn't get blown around by wind nearly as much as 55 and 62-grainers, has enough inertia to go 600 yards easy at sea level in 95-degree heat, enough ass to hurt someone's feelings in armor, and punches deep through tissue), and works in legacy weapons we have in hand, right now, today, NATO compatible. Like M855 and A1 it'll tear up silhouettes and kill house steel.
No need, when A1 was in development it was stated early on that the design be modular meaning the steel penetrator could be swapped out for a tungsten one. They even developed a new sintering process to mass produce tungsten penetrators. Then they did the math and realized that 1 year of M855A1 production would exhaust the entire strategic reserve of tungsten, they scrapped the idea. General issue tungsten core ammo is a pipedream unless we can source more tungsten, and guess where the largest reserves of tungsten are located...
MikhailBarracuda91
08-21-22, 22:03
No need, when A1 was in development it was stated early on that the design be modular meaning the steel penetrator could be swapped out for a tungsten one. They even developed a new sintering process to mass produce tungsten penetrators. Then they did the math and realized that 1 year of M855A1 production would exhaust the entire strategic reserve of tungsten, they scrapped the idea. General issue tungsten core ammo is a pipedream unless we can source more tungsten, and guess where the largest reserves of tungsten are located...China
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
If I was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and we had a North American tungsten source, I'd say standardize M995 Armor Piercing as the Army load.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/18978/M995_jpg-2498020.JPG
https://youtu.be/AJOJ6vWGMRc?t=81
It is precise, heavy (doesn't get blown around by wind nearly as much as 55 and 62-grainers, has enough inertia to go 600 yards easy at sea level in 95-degree heat, enough ass to hurt someone's feelings in armor, and punches deep through tissue), and works in legacy weapons we have in hand, right now, today, NATO compatible. Like M855 and A1 it'll tear up silhouettes and kill house steel.
Gross. No upset. Tungsten resource.
Unlike 855 and A1, it sails straight through target steel in my experience.
I did keep a mag (de-linked) of it in ar Ramadi to deal with vehicles.
I can't find the youtbe video where a Swedish or Norwegian squad shot up a BRDM with their 416s.
Side of that vehicle may as well have been a cardboard e-type.
I'd rather have more shoot-through hits with no upset than half a mag of misses.
I can't find the youtbe video where a Swedish or Norwegian squad shot up a BRDM with their 417s.
Side of that vehicle may as well have been a cardboard e-type.
I'd rather have more shoot-through hits with no upset than half a mag of misses.
That is one technique for dealing with light armor. I can’t say that its wrong.
Liberty Ammunition sued the federal government for patent infringement and breach of contract in regard to M855A1.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/liberty_ammunition_lawsuit_against_feder-2438886.jpg
....
They lost that case.
1. The Officer in question did not have the authority to commit the USG to any contractual obligations. If you are dealing with the military, remember that. Not all Officers, regardless of rank, are empowered to commit the USG to a binding contract.
2. The design of the M855A1 did not infringe on the patent's claims. Remember that, too. Just because it looks similar, does not automatically mean infringement, what matters it what you claim in the body of the text as the improvement.
Anyone have an idea when they downloaded the M855A1 to it's current level?
MIL-DTL-32338A with Amendment 5, dated 16 February 2017, changed some things regarding the chamber pressure, but I would not call it “downloading” in any way, shape, or form.
1. The maximum average chamber pressure was reduced 500 psi.
2. The average plus three standard deviations remained the same at 66,000 psi
3. The maximum average chamber pressure at extreme temperatures was changed from “the average chamber pressure at 70 degrees plus 7,000 psi” to just “shall not exceed 67,000 psi,” but the average chamber pressure at extreme temperature plus three standard deviations was INCREASED to 71,000 psi. That’s 4,000 psi higher than before.
All other parameters, velocity, port pressure, etc, remained the same.
St Marks may have tweaked the propellant formula to keep the average pressure down away from the permitted maximums, but the requirement limits are largely the same.
The mil-spec referenced does not specify “a 6.8” group at 600 yards”. The mil-spec for M855 calls for an average vertical standard deviation and an average horizontal standard deviation of 6.8” at 600 yards. The average vertical and horizontal standard deviations are completely different metrics of measuring the radial dispersion of shot groups than the extreme spread. Also, the referenced mil-spec is not for the “M16A2, with green-tip or M855.” The referenced mil-spec using the average vertical and horizontal standard deviations is for M855 fired from machine-rested, bolt-action heavy test barrels.
MIL-DTL-32338A with Amendment 2, dated 23 April 2014, changed that.
The requirement was changed to: the average standard deviation, both horizontal and vertical shall not be greater than 6.3 inches at 600 yards but kept the 1.8 at 200 yards requirement.
With Amendment 4, dated 19 June 2015, the 200 yard figure was reduced to 1.6 inches.
So, currently the requirements are that the horizontal and vertical standard deviation:
600 yds = 6.3 inches
200 yds = 1.6 inches
They lost that case.
No, they didn't loose the case that I referrenced. They won that case and the court awarded Liberty Ammunition a huge settlement. After that, the federal government went judge-shopping in appellate court to get the ruling overturned.
"The court awards Liberty $15,617,533.68 in damages, as of April 30, 2013. Liberty is entitled to interest for delayed compensation at the 5-year Treasury note rate from July 6, 2010, compounded semi-annually, until the date the judgment is actually paid.54
Within 90 days of the close of each of the government’s fiscal years after April 30, 2013, the government shall provide a royalty report to Liberty accounting for the number of infringing rounds ordered and delivered, and 30 days thereafter shall make a royalty payment to Liberty for those rounds at a rate of $0,014 per round."
....
MIL-DTL-32338A with Amendment 2, dated 23 April 2014, changed that.
The requirement was changed to: the average standard deviation, both horizontal and vertical shall not be greater than 6.3 inches at 600 yards but kept the 1.8 at 200 yards requirement.
With Amendment 4, dated 19 June 2015, the 200 yard figure was reduced to 1.6 inches.
So, currently the requirements are that the horizontal and vertical standard deviation:
600 yds = 6.3 inches
200 yds = 1.6 inches
Now go back to the first post of this thread and actually try watching the video to see the mil-spec version that he was referring to and hence my post stating "the mil-spec referrenced."
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/video_capture_001-2499831.jpg
.....
Now go back to the first post of this thread and actually try watching the video to see the mil-spec version that he was referring to and hence my post stating "the mil-spec referrenced."
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/video_capture_001-2499831.jpg
.....
Just keeping everybody up to date, no need to get excited . . .
The current requirement is tighter than that referenced.
No, they didn't loose the case that I referrenced. They won that case and the court awarded Liberty Ammunition a huge settlement. After that, the federal government went judge-shopping in appellate court to get the ruling overturned.
"The court awards Liberty $15,617,533.68 in damages, as of April 30, 2013. Liberty is entitled to interest for delayed compensation at the 5-year Treasury note rate from July 6, 2010, compounded semi-annually, until the date the judgment is actually paid.54
Within 90 days of the close of each of the government’s fiscal years after April 30, 2013, the government shall provide a royalty report to Liberty accounting for the number of infringing rounds ordered and delivered, and 30 days thereafter shall make a royalty payment to Liberty for those rounds at a rate of $0,014 per round."
....
The US Government appealed the case and on 26 August 2016 the US Federal Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision. A case is not "won" or "lost" until all the appeals are filed and decided. This means they lost the case, and the Government does not have to pay anything.
Lawyer: Liberty Ammunition still has options after losing patent appeal against federal government (https://flarecord.com/stories/511010015-lawyer-liberty-ammunition-still-has-options-after-losing-patent-appeal-against-federal-government)
Army Ammunition Goes Green and Infringement Free (https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/army-ammunition-goes-green-and-23057/)
Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United States, appellant court opinion/ (https://casetext.com/case/liberty-ammunition-inc-v-united-states/)
"The United States appeals the decision of the Court of Federal Claims that ammunition rounds used by the United States Army embody the claims of Liberty Ammunition, Inc.'s U.S. Patent No. 7,748,325 without authorization, violating 28 U.S.C. § 1498. The Government argues that the trial court erred in construing several claim terms and that, when these terms are construed correctly, the Army rounds do not embody the claimed invention. We agree with the Government that the trial court erred in two of its claim constructions because those constructions are unsupported by the intrinsic record. Because Liberty cannot prevail under the proper claim constructions, we reverse the decision of the trial court and hold that the Government does not practice the asserted claims of Liberty's patent in violation of § 1498. . . .
"For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the trial court erred when construing the “intermediate opposite ends” and “reduced area of conduct” claim terms and reverse its holding that the Government practiced the asserted claims of the '325 patent and vacate its award of damages. We affirm the trial court's holding that Liberty cannot prevail on its breach of contract claim because the trial court's determination that Lt. Col. Dean lacked the requisite authority to enter an NDA on the Government's behalf is not clearly erroneous."
Judge Newman in her opinion wrote:
"The Court of Federal Claims held the '325 patent valid, and infringed by the A1 modifications of the M855 and M80 projectiles. My colleagues hold that the patent is not infringed. I agree that the patent is not infringed by these A1 projectiles, for it was undisputed that the entire base of the A1 projectile is enclosed or “jacketed,” unlike the claimed '325 projectile. The '325 claims require that the metal interface does not enclose the base of the projectile. Thus I join the court's ruling of non-infringement."
AS TO THIS:
After that, the federal government went judge-shopping in appellate court to get the ruling overturned.
That would be quite impossible as this was a patent case and heard before US Court of Federal Claims, as such the only appeals courts available to this court is the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Any appeal about a patent case comes before this body. And, once the appeal has been accepted by the Court Clerk's Office, the case is assigned randomly to a three judge panel. And the three judge panels are made up by random.
I do remember there being a lot of hoopla, and I kinda thought the suit was going to kill the A1 project, which was fine by me at the time because I thought I was going to hate it. It wouldn’t be the first time the Army has “borrowed” IP. What I’m curious about is that if Liberty had something similar enough to file suit over, where’s it at today? Does anyone here know anything about the Liberty projectile?
I do remember there being a lot of hoopla, and I kinda thought the suit was going to kill the A1 project, which was fine by me at the time because I thought I was going to hate it. It wouldn’t be the first time the Army has “borrowed” IP. What I’m curious about is that if Liberty had something similar enough to file suit over, where’s it at today? Does anyone here know anything about the Liberty projectile?
Just what is in the patent. And to be honest, I would not use such a bullet.
https://i.imgur.com/AfJsbQC.jpg
This is interesting, and the first time I've seen the patent drawing. I can see why the judges and panel would reject Liberty's claim.
M855A1, without a lead slug, seems more like a two-piece version of Remington's Bronze Point bullet -- with a drawn-from-the-base copper body for nominally better base/boat-tail consistency for precision.
The Army's first attempt was more three-part Bronze Point than the final adopted M855A1. First version:
http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/m855a102.jpg
As adopted (M855 Green Tip left, M855A1 right):
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/18978/compare_jpg-2500473.JPG
https://imgs.search.brave.com/zWN_ExWdaCRI9i3KIDOohwBkdzs7yX8VvDdl0uhb25s/rs:fit:880:660:1/g:ce/aHR0cDovL21lZGlh/Lm1pZHdheXVzYS5j/b20vcHJvZHVjdGlt/YWdlcy84ODB4NjYw/L1ByaW1hcnkvMjU2/LzI1Njc1NC5qcGc
https://imgs.search.brave.com/GL5mNrcYu3rvpcXl0cuxmouEoDvHoWgXpKite7Kh1Ec/rs:fit:880:660:1/g:ce/aHR0cDovL21lZGlh/Lm1pZHdheXVzYS5j/b20vcHJvZHVjdGlt/YWdlcy84ODB4NjYw/L1ByaW1hcnkvMjQw/LzI0MDM3OS5qcGc
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/18978/bronze_point_jpeg-2500459.JPG
https://imgs.search.brave.com/AQRxo3f0scvFkAaeah2Q_lfcxYVMxLdV_pRM10l3Bk8/rs:fit:640:480:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9zMy5h/bWF6b25hd3MuY29t/L21nbS1jb250ZW50/L3NpdGVzL2FybXNs/aXN0L3VwbG9hZHMv/cG9zdHMvMjAxNS8w/MS8yOC8zOTcwMzI1/XzAyX3JlbWluZ3Rv/bl8zMDhfYnVsbGV0/c182NDAuanBn
vicious_cb
08-24-22, 00:06
This is interesting, and the first time I've seen the patent drawing. I can see why the judges and panel would reject Liberty's claim.
M855A1, without a lead slug, seems more like a two-piece version of Remington's Bronze Point bullet -- with a drawn-from-the-base copper body for nominally better base/boat-tail consistency for precision.
The Army's first attempt was more three-part Bronze Point than the final adopted M855A1. First version:
Hmm, I dont think they are of a common linage. Those bronze points serve as a ballistic tip instead of a penetrator. Not to mention there is some advanced fluid dynamics going on with the A1 design to give it the terminal ballistics it has.
True, but incidental. The impetus for developing M855A1 wasn't lethality or efficiency. The official reason was driven by Massachusetts banning lead in small arms ammunition fired on federal and state ranges (Fort Devens, Westover AB, Hanscom AB, Camp Edwards).
ExplorinInTheWoods
08-28-22, 19:18
Mass is a Cuck state, it’s sad how it was a place where the revolution was born and now it’s just white trash from boston and liberals
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.