Yes.
M855A1 EPR is an ATK/Lake City design, while Mk318 Mod0 is an ATK/Federal Cartridge design.
Yes.
M855A1 EPR is an ATK/Lake City design, while Mk318 Mod0 is an ATK/Federal Cartridge design.
Holy crap - your assessment makes so much sense that the only people who can't see it are apparently the higher-ups in the procurement chain. That borders on virtually criminal stupidity to make the ammo more expensive when the troops aren't getting the trigger time they need.
That's a sad commentary on how the military is doing things.
I didn't know that those rounds were more effective than .30 M2 AP.Why go with 1940's technology AP, when modern, better performing AP loads like M993 and M995 are available?
I would also feel more comfortable with 7.62x51 AP but I know that AP is scarce in that caliber.
If modern M993 and M995 is that good, imagine what they could do with a new 7.62 AP round.
M993 = current issue 7.62x51mm AP
M995 = current issue 5.56 mm AP
M993 = current issue 7.62x51mm AP
Just looked M993 up and it looks good. Same design as M995.
Didn't see any comparisons with M2 AP.
From what I have read, M2 AP was the most commonly issued round for riflemen in the European theater, not because of the use of body armor, but due to the widespread use of vehicles on the battlefields.
M995 may suffice for now, but advances in body armor may force a reintroduction of a full power AP round and a rifle to fire it. History repeats itself.
More expensive than Mk262? How would this compare against 6.8 .
Everything about that .ppt looks like a well polished turd - I can put 80% of M855 rounds on an 8"x8" plate at 550yd from the prone - that hardly defines match accuracy. I don't see any claims at this improving soft tissue performance, only that this addresses intermediate barrier penetration and a lead-free projectile requirement.
DocR's explanation and model of employing a quality small wars oriented round makes tons of sense, and M995 makes tons more sense as a stockpile/NATO round. Brand shouldn't be as relevant as it is, my buddies in Marjeh are telling me that Mk318 is plenty accurate.
Mk318 is working. It's cheaper. We're engaged in COIN operations. It is the better choice.
Enjoy your ACU's and M855A1!
Last edited by TehLlama; 08-23-10 at 21:19.
عندما تصبح الأسلحة محظورة, قد يملكون حظرون عندهم فقط
کله چی سلاح منع شوی دی، یوازي غلوونکۍ یی به درلود
Semper Fi
"Being able to do the basics, on demand, takes practice. " - Sinister
What does it have to do with then? Reason I ask is I have read several bizarre statements about the M855A1 touting it's leadfree construction as one of it's prime selling points. I am wondering if that is really driving the train or if it is something else and these statements are just the Army trying to play public relations.
Thanks.
I conjecture the bullet yaws and fragments in soft tissues because otherwise the Army could simply general-issue M995 armor-piercing ammo for a lot less cost, and achieve the same performance.
The bullet is comprised of three parts: 1) copper-tin base core, 2) steel penetrator tip, and 3) gilding metal (copper-zinc alloy) jacket. Given that it fragments into two main pieces after penetrating windshield glass indicates to me that the copper-tin core is unlikely to fragment in soft tissues. It appears to me that, when penetrating soft tissues, the bullet yaws and *consistently* fragments into two main pieces - steel tip and jacket/core, similar to how M193/M855 merely fragments into two pieces in soft tissues at lower velocities. (The jacket may separate from the core and/or fragment, but this is probably an inconsistent result.) At close distance the temporary cavity may tear open the diverging permanent cavities produced by the tip and core, increasing permanent disruption. At longer distances wounding effects are probably very similar, if not identical to M193/M855 at longer distance.
Shawn Dodson
Bookmarks