Questions about M855A1

[sinister]

Army ripped off someone else's design.

U.S. loses patent suit, owes ammo maker $15M
By: Kevin Lilley, Army Times, January 21, 2015

The U.S. government will pay a Florida ammunition-maker more than $15.6 million after losing a patent-infringement lawsuit regarding the design of M855A1 and M80A1 rounds.

Liberty Ammunition also will receive royalties of 1.4 cents per round on that ammunition until the patent expires in 2027, according to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruling, issued in late December and first reported in the Bradenton (Fla.) Herald. That could mean several millions more in payout: The government, primarily the Army, ordered more than 158 million of the M855A1 rounds in fiscal 2013, the lawsuit states, and Army budget documents show plans to purchase at least 65 million M855A1 rounds of various types in fiscal 2015.

The government is "considering its options on appeal," Justice Department spokeswoman Nicole Navas said in an email. Army public affairs personnel would not comment, citing pending litigation.

"We're very satisfied with the judgment," George Phillips, Liberty's chief executive officer, said Wednesday. "The [court] upheld our contention that the government had violated our patent ... and PJ Marx, our inventor and founder, is now acknowledged as the inventor of enhanced-performance-round technology.

Marx, an established inventor in the music industry who began pursuing a better bullet after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, first spoke with Army officials about his Enhanced Performance Incapacitative Composite round in 2004, the ruling states. Marx filed a patent application on the EPIC round in 2005 which five years later became Patent No. 7,748,325, the patent at the heart of the lawsuit.

Judge Charles Lettow found the government's ammunition design infringed on the patent, the rights of which Marx assigned to Liberty, a company he founded in 2005. Lettow did not side with Liberty on allegations that the government violated three nondisclosure agreements made between Marx and various military officials during the ammunition-development process. The NDAs weren't ratified by the Army or U.S. Special Operations Command, Lettow ruled, and thus did not constitute enforceable contracts.

Phillips would not put a figure on the possible total compensation through 2027 but said he expected government ammunition purchases to remain fairly constant over that time period.

The lead-free 5.56mm EPRs "improve hard and soft target performance" while containing "an environmentally friendly projectile," according to an online fact sheet from Army Acquisition Support Center. The Army began shipping the so-called "green bullet" to Afghanistan in 2010, replacing M855 ammunition that had been developed after the Vietnam War and entered into wide use in the early 1980s.

[sinister]

If I recall correctly, one of the primary reasons for the new round was to address terminal ballistics at the extended ranges our guys were encountering in Afghanistan, where M855 wasn’t having the effects we needed at 300+ meters out of 14.5” barrels. I’m guessing that the muzzle velocity of M193 out of a 20” M16 barrel helped make it an effective round, but it would probably struggle in a similar way at 300+ meters from an M4, especially fired at a high angle up into the mountains.

Actually it was developed because the state of Massachusetts wouldn't allow the National Guard continue to use lead-core ammo at Fort Devens.

The current projectile is the third or fourth design, which the Army finally adopted. It just happens to be more lethal -- it wasn't a design requirement.

[jackblack73]

Army ripped off someone else's design.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/a...munition-case/

[3ACR_Scout]

Do you have a link to primary source? I would like to read the whole paper. Seems odd that it would pass USMC testing but fail Army testing.

The only primary sources I could find actually showed the Pmag was superior in testing.

I work on Army procurement requirements in my current job, so I’m starting to understand how all this works. Just because a piece of equipment encounters issues, or isn’t the top performer, in some parts of the testing, it doesn’t mean that it “failed.” Requirements are written in terms of a “threshold” (the minimum standard) and “objective” (the desired, nice-to-have standard). Reliability of a vehicle might have a threshold of 75% and an objective of 80%, for example - meaning that the vehicle should be operational 75% of the time but will require periodic maintenance. With a magazine, that could be expressed in terms of mean rounds between failures. Everyone knows that something like a magazine isn’t going to be 100% reliable, and requiring a manufacturer to make a magazine 95% reliable, instead of just 90%, could hypothetically double the cost of the magazine because of the need for additional development, testing, and improved materials. Giving them wiggle room in the way the requirements are written is referred to as “trade space” because it allows the government and the vendor to agree on trade offs between top performanace vs. acceptable performance, balancing cost and the time required to develop and field the new piece of equipment.

It’s also interesting to note that the Army (Aberdeen Proving Ground) actually conducted the Marine Corps’ magazine testing.

[ALCOAR]

Actually it was developed because the state of Massachusetts wouldn't allow the National Guard continue to use lead-core ammo at Fort Devens.

The current projectile is the third or fourth design, which the Army finally adopted. It just happens to be more lethal -- it wasn't a design requirement.

Thank you for you posts in this thread, and for continuing to stick around M4C and share information.

Your one of the last true SMEs on gun forums these days. I've learned a great deal over the years from your posts, and real world experience.

[ScottsBad]

About M855A1; I think that the development of this round will spark private companies to look at ways to develop something similar, but it will not be affordable because private companies won't have the volume. Sad, but true.

As far as magazines are concerned; I prefer USGI type mags, especially NHTMG/Okay. So I ordered some Okay E2 mags to check them out. Mainly I like the idea of the stippling for grip, but I understand they require less bolt speed to feed too, which could be a reliability enhancement. I guess I'll find out.

Yeah, the big SUREFEED on the side is ridiculous, but I don't really give a crap.

[ABNAK]

What, no Mk318 love?

[sinister]

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/a...munition-case/

Remington also had Bronze Point sporting bullets a long time ago.


F14rw.jpg

These are Corbins:

tip-install.jpg

[PappyM3]

Interesting. I’m guessing either Remington didn’t patent it, or the patent ran out. I also think that an ammunition manufacturer could get away with making an M855A1 copy. They might get sued, but I think they have a leg to stand on given Remington’s conception and practice of the invention. I don’t think the material differences of the penetrator and slug of the M855A1 compared to Remington’s bullet are significantly different to pass the non-obviousness criteria. Who knows, maybe the purpose of the penetrator and non-lead slug differentiate it enough.

[okie]

It’s better than 855 but I have no experience with it. I’m just saying not everyone has to deal with dudes coming at them with plate armor and if they do then they need more friends.

If I knew someone thought enough of me to come at me like a ninja turtle then I have a Garand sighted at 300 meters with a cvc bag with of clips with black tip ammo.

I am somehow surviving without 855A1.
And not just no, but hell no to paying 50 bucks a 20 round stripper clip of stolen military ammo off gunbroker

Armor is only part of it, and honestly probably the lesser part. Realistically, M855A1 probably doesn't have much more in the way of armor piercing capability than M855 does. It can't penetrate plates, so all that it would do better than M855 in that arena is piercing Kevlar at range. So maybe an extra 50 meters where it will still pierce Kevlar, where an M855 wouldn't?

The big deal is barrier penetration. It does great at penetrating hard barriers. So window glass, car doors, heavy metal doors, etc. Just any number of things you find in urbanized places that people like to use for cover.

And it can't be stressed enough that its increased penetration is only one improvement over M855. Mainly it's going to tumble and fragment out of any barrel at any range, and it's probably twice as accurate out of a decent barrel. There are people who claim it can do sub MOA from a SOCOM barrel, which, if true, would put it up there with just about any match grade bullet out there.

And again, it does all this at the same cost as M855, so roughly 35 cents a round. Even if it had no increased barrier penetration, a sub .50 cent bullet doing sub MOA is revolutionary in and of itself.

Well, 2027 here I come. Looks like that's the earliest we could potentially see some at market price.