G&R Tactical
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Terminal ballistics-wise: Mk318 or M855A1?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    6,319
    Feedback Score
    81 (100%)
    I donít know when the stuff I shot was made, but the ballistics were noticeably different. POI was significantly higher, I assumed due to the increased velocity.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Sic semper tyrannis.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,761
    Feedback Score
    73 (100%)
    Pressures have been dropped but there are still issues with the M855A1 damaging weapons.

    In regards to terminal ballistics, M855A1 is superior to the MK318. Better penetration, and fragmentation.

    Quote Originally Posted by vicious_cb View Post
    1st of all M855A1 doesnt have increased wear anymore since they dropped the pressures. Both anecdotally and looking at ballistics gel, M855A1 seems to be the superior bullet. They are very close in performance but when the distances increase and velocity falls off, M855A1 looks to have a lower velocity threshold for fragmentation.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,348
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ABNAK View Post
    Do you happen to have a link I can read on the subject? I'd be interested to see changes and timeframes.

    I don't recall where I read it but supposedly the pressures weren't dropped all the way back to "regular" 5.56 NATO, but nonetheless lower than the original recipe.
    Noone really knows. It was rapidly evolving in real-time, with multiple lots/charges in circulation at the same time, etc.
    Last edited by WS6; 05-10-19 at 04:41.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,733
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by davidjinks View Post
    Pressures have been dropped but there are still issues with the M855A1 damaging weapons.

    In regards to terminal ballistics, M855A1 is superior to the MK318. Better penetration, and fragmentation.
    I'm just recalling this off the top of my head but the originals exceeded 60,000 PSI and now they're down to like 56,000, correct? Don't recall where I read it. So less than the original but still higher than NATO specs.
    11C2P '83-'87
    Airborne Infantry

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,348
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by kaltesherz View Post
    Pretty sure the pressure reduction wasn't long after it was introduced after all the reports of breaking bolts and wearing out barrels quickly. All the lots we've been shooting are older (2014ish) and don't seem noticeably hotter than M855.

    M855A1 fragments much further out than green tip, I haven't seen any hard data but from unofficial experiments people have been making with gel I wouldn't be surprised if it was past 300m. It's a huge improvement.
    Its target was 600m initial, but I believe they backed off to 450-500 or something as a more realistic goal with pressure reduction.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,348
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ABNAK View Post
    I'm just recalling this off the top of my head but the originals exceeded 60,000 PSI and now they're down to like 56,000, correct? Don't recall where I read it. So less than the original but still higher than NATO specs.
    They're a few hundred PSI lower than greentip, I believe.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,761
    Feedback Score
    73 (100%)
    It’s not so much the pressure anymore, it’s the design of the projectile. Combating the that specific issue is why the .Mil has been updating magazines. However, that’s not the end all be all answer to the issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by ABNAK View Post
    I'm just recalling this off the top of my head but the originals exceeded 60,000 PSI and now they're down to like 56,000, correct? Don't recall where I read it. So less than the original but still higher than NATO specs.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •