Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 87

Thread: M855A1 with H6 buffer?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Cocoa, FL
    Posts
    250
    Feedback Score
    0
    The penetrator will spin inside that jacket on some rounds, so it is just barely hanging on for the trip. Redstone Rep told us that is designed to sheer off on soft tissue. Of course velocity determines the result.

    I dont know if they adjusted gas port size on the new M4A1 barrels they are producing but I am sure by now that they have checked gas pressure and dwell times and that drove the H2 portion of the upgrade.

    While I am not sure of the H6 move and I am following the why and give a thumbs up on the resourcing and research, this thread has my interest as we will be moving to the M855A1 stateside as soon as our ranges support it.
    Ash Hess

    Government Sales Specialist at Knights Armament Company

    ahess@knightarmco.com

    Senior writer of TC 3-22.9 Rifle and Carbine
    US Army Master Marksmanship Instructor.
    Sionics Weapon Systems AR15 Armorer


  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    3,204
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by markm View Post
    .... I wonder if these bullets cause the problems that Barnes bullets cause in some barrels.. with the excessive copper fouling...

    I assume Hodgdon's new CFE223 powder is what's spec'd for the M855A1. It supposedly dramatically reduces copper fouling.



    Sent from my Torque using Tapatalk
    “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pentagon
    Posts
    497
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    I can guarantee you the EPA did not provide funding IRT the EPR development. The only thing the EPA was involved in was setting lead standards that caused the military to move toward lead free munitions


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #64
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tokarev View Post
    I assume Hodgdon's new CFE223 powder is what's spec'd for the M855A1. It supposedly dramatically reduces copper fouling.



    Sent from my Torque using Tapatalk
    Powder should be SMP-842.
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Stafford, Virginia
    Posts
    1,169
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by U.S.Cavalryman View Post
    The biggest worry on this ammo is the steel penetrator is exposed. On feeding it drags the top of the chamber and carves a groove. Redstone has been getting excessive wear from this in testing. Keep in mind that they are running 50,000+ rounds on these things just to see how far it will go. You can imagine what happens once it cuts deep enough with super high chamber pressures.
    This is the second time I've heard this in the past month. I attended the Gunner's Combat Marksmanship Symposium at Quantico last month. There was a SFC from Redstone that talked about the groove being the major issue. He claimed they were able to get kabooms at 20-21k rounds. He also said that there is an order about replacing the barrels at 12k rounds to keep on the safe side. He said the reason for 12k and not 19k was that there is no accurate method to get a round count. Every time you bring the weapon to condition 1, even if you don't fire the round, it still causes the groove.

    The other issue is that there is only one type of magazine that can be used because on most magazines the tip of the round drags just enough to slow it down a little. If I recall properly it has to do with the parkerized magazines. The tell the difference by the color of the followers...I can't remember which color is good.

    From what he said, it is a very accurate round, right up there with match grade ammo.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Cocoa, FL
    Posts
    250
    Feedback Score
    0
    I was there too. All the way in the back, in the GravelCam Army section. This comes from multiple sources.
    Ash Hess

    Government Sales Specialist at Knights Armament Company

    ahess@knightarmco.com

    Senior writer of TC 3-22.9 Rifle and Carbine
    US Army Master Marksmanship Instructor.
    Sionics Weapon Systems AR15 Armorer


  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Arrakis
    Posts
    305
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuckatelli View Post
    If I recall properly it has to do with the parkerized magazines. The tell the difference by the color of the followers...I can't remember which color is good.
    Hopefully the brown followers since that is what the Army is buying.
    “Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils.”
    - General John Stark, July 31, 1809

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,217
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tokarev View Post
    I assume Hodgdon's new CFE223 powder is what's spec'd for the M855A1. It supposedly dramatically reduces copper fouling.
    I was mistaken. The projectile looked to be solid copper, but in fact there's a copper core with the same jacket material as M855.
    "You people have too much time on your hands." - scottryan

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,422
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    I keep seeing claims that the M855A1 is loaded to higher chamber pressures but cannot find any data to support the claims. The closest thing I've found is the claim that M855 is loaded to 55k and M855A1 is loaded to 63k. Some are claiming that the new round is loaded close to proof round pressures. Proof round pressures are over 70k. The problem with that is NATO specs call for 63k if I recall correctly. It also does not explain what method was used to measure those pressures. Where is the actual data to support the claims?
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,217
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    The article in Rifleman covered that. They bumped the pressure up 3k if I remember right. 62k to 65k or something along those lines.
    "You people have too much time on your hands." - scottryan

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •