.gov loses lawsuit ref M855a1 bullet

[littlejerry]

I was unaware the USMC was moving away from Mk318. That is disappointing...

[Unobtanium]

It's a huge boondoggle from the money standpoint and the fact they got caught stealing makes it really expensive.

It is flatter shooting and more accurate, but it is also way overpressure and that 10% premature wear figure is for barrels, not bolts, which are taking about a 25% service life hit. As for terminal effectiveness, the anecdotal information I've seen indicated it seemed more effective than M855. It still sucks on windshields. When you consider that M855 was NEVER intended to be fielded in M4/M16 systems (only in the M249 SAW) and the stupid money and time that's been spent, the idea of using M855 in the SAW and Mk. 318 in shoulder guns makes lots of sense. Unfortunately, making sense is the last thing most monolithic corporate/gov/mil entities wish to do.

I understand that the 600m terminal performance envelope is the big deal. I've seen gel shots and it truly is ugly. Mk318 works well out to what? 150m? 200?

[Unobtanium]

I was unaware the USMC was moving away from Mk318. That is disappointing...

Mk318 was just a stopgap until A1 came on line from what I've heard.

[JMS]

No. That was a hint of an original intent, prior to the shell-game that is M855A1 becoming common knowledge amongst small-arms procurement professionals who make a genuine effort to keep the needs of the warfighter as foremost as the system allows.

SysCom gave an award to the engineer who managed to disregard the political pressures and run a CLEAN head-to-head test of the two. Mk318 came out on top in an objective test, not the least of which because nobody worth a shit give a hoot about "clean" ammo (no such thing, period; it's ALL dirty) and because the wear-rate on guns in which it was used were objectively noted and NOT conveniently omitted from published results.

The USMC runs on about $.07 of each DoD dollar, and while SysCom assuredly makes some dippy decisions as to what to buy, they're not gonna pay more $$ for ammo under some misguided idea that having to pay even more for weapon repair/replacement is some Bizarro Superman kind of net gain.

[Unobtanium]

No. That was a hint of an original intent, prior to the shell-game that is M855A1 becoming common knowledge amongst small-arms procurement professionals who make a genuine effort to keep the needs of the warfighter as foremost as the system allows.

SysCom gave an award to the engineer who managed to disregard the political pressures and run a CLEAN head-to-head test of the two. Mk318 came out on top in an objective test, not the least of which because nobody worth a shit give a hoot about "clean" ammo (no such thing, period; it's ALL dirty) and because the wear-rate on guns in which it was used were objectively noted and NOT conveniently omitted from published results.

The USMC runs on about $.07 of each DoD dollar, and while SysCom assuredly makes some dippy decisions as to what to buy, they're not gonna pay more $$ for ammo under some misguided idea that having to pay even more for weapon repair/replacement is some Bizarro Superman kind of net gain.

Other than autoglass, and a bit of wear, in what way is mk318 superior? The gel tests I've seen of a1 are nasty...

[Chuck Haggard]

Other than autoglass, and a bit of wear, in what way is mk318 superior? The gel tests I've seen of a1 are nasty...

So are the gel tests of the 318

[JMS]

That extra wear is "a bit" in the sense of "a bit of rape".....

Outperforms M855 WITHOUT a 100% increase in cost/round, with no accelerated wear, period. Matches the 855-based reticles on legacy optics...which A1 never did, despite being advertised that way.

It's a significant mistake to think that A1 is the thing that had to be beat; it's M855 that provided the baseline for comparison. Other mistake is to look at it from a raw performance standpoint, when it's a bang-for-shrinking-budgets question.

[Odin Bravo One]

Other than autoglass, and a bit of wear, in what way is mk318 superior? The gel tests I've seen of a1 are nasty...

So are the gel tests of the 318

During informal tissue testing, the performance of 318 was worth noting when compared to A1 and other general issue milspec rounds.

[Unobtanium]

So are the gel tests of the 318

I thought the A1 looked much more destructive, but that's just me. Also, it performs out to 600m, which, as I understand (I am not affiliated with the military), some of the soldiers were shooting out to, and hitting, the enemy at. MK318 would just ice-pick and tumble at 600m. I think the furthest I would count on MK318 performing properly from a 14.5" barrel is about 300 yards, from what I've seen. Also, based on those who have shot deer with MK318, it doesn't do anything special. Pokes a hole in, does minor damage (compared to X135, MK262, etc.), exits. Deer runs a ways and then falls.

[Unobtanium]

That extra wear is "a bit" in the sense of "a bit of rape".....

Outperforms M855 WITHOUT a 100% increase in cost/round, with no accelerated wear, period. Matches the 855-based reticles on legacy optics...which A1 never did, despite being advertised that way.

It's a significant mistake to think that A1 is the thing that had to be beat; it's M855 that provided the baseline for comparison. Other mistake is to look at it from a raw performance standpoint, when it's a bang-for-shrinking-budgets question.

I feel like the M16A4 and .223 ammo would be a better combination, of course, because NATO pressure are higher, and the shorter gas system combine to form "a bit of rape", do you agree with me? Or would you prefer that soldiers not be forced to use 20" barrels, rifle-length gas systems, and .223 pressure ammo, accepting that "a bit of rape" might just be okay...?

The 10% increase in wear from M855A1 is just as tolerable, IMO.