M855A1 article [GRAPHIC - NSFW]

[DocGKR]

Yes--it does better in some situations, but over-penetration can still be an issue in LE/defensive situations. Again, both the TSX and GMX are great bullets that I would unhesitatingly carry for many uses, such as hunting and unobstructed shots, while remaining cognizant of their potential limitations in other situations.

[Sixgun_Symphony]

Is there is an executive order mandating a transition to lead free ammunition. Is this why the Army transitioned? If so are "leeching" concerns irrelevant? If Commander in Chief ordered the DOD to go lead free? Is it true that the guy who won a patent lawsuit did so in a ruling that stated the US Army adopted M855 during the Vietnam war? The "ballistic requirement" list...what bullets currently meet the specs for performance in soft tissue and barriers? The bullets in the 223 and 308 stickys?? What else? Is mk318 closer to the requirements than M855A1?

Has this article been posted in the thread or on the forum? http://www.americanrifleman.org/arti...all-cartridge/

[Sixgun_Symphony]

The “Eight Points of Light” proposed by SSA Buford Boone of the FBI BRF are a tightly integrated approach to controlling military bullet performance, which if adopted all together, meet valid military requirements, but do not violate established international laws. Bullets must:

-- Be blind to impact yaw
-- Limit penetration to 12-18”
-- Resist yaw in tissue, with no yaw earlier than 12”
-- Continue on shot line after penetrating tissue
-- Be barrier blind
-- Limit fragmentation
-- Perform consistently from 0 – 300 meters
-- Be accurate enough to engage human targets to 600 meters

This modern, integrated performance based method of limiting military bullet effects is far superior to the vague, outmoded Hague Convention guidelines.

Do we have more info on this? What validates it??

[DocGKR]

Was that a serious question?!?!?

[Chuck Haggard]

The “Eight Points of Light” proposed by SSA Buford Boone of the FBI BRF are a tightly integrated approach to controlling military bullet performance, which if adopted all together, meet valid military requirements, but do not violate established international laws. Bullets must:

-- Be blind to impact yaw
-- Limit penetration to 12-18”
-- Resist yaw in tissue, with no yaw earlier than 12”
-- Continue on shot line after penetrating tissue
-- Be barrier blind
-- Limit fragmentation
-- Perform consistently from 0 – 300 meters
-- Be accurate enough to engage human targets to 600 meters

This modern, integrated performance based method of limiting military bullet effects is far superior to the vague, outmoded Hague Convention guidelines.

Do we have more info on this? What validates it??

What validates it is the entire body of current modern wound ballistics knowledge and science.

[Sixgun_Symphony]

Was that a serious question?!?!?

It was, believe me.. I'm a supporter of yours and of the information and work that you bring to the community.. What about my other post? I've been hearing some new various stuff about it from friends still in the service.

What validates it is the entire body of current modern wound ballistics knowledge and science.

I use “Eight Points of Light” of SSA Buford Boone, provided via DocGKR. From a performance parameters stand point, I cant think of much more and sounds about perfect. I wish the FBI had an open source version of Handgun wounding factors but for rifles. I'm just looking for more sources with the same conclusion as Mr Boone and what science backs its up, so I can fight the better fight.

[DocGKR]

Is there is an executive order mandating a transition to lead free ammunition: No.

Is this why the Army transitioned: No

If so are "leeching" concerns irrelevant: Go to Yorktown, Gettysburg, Verdun, Normandy, or any other battlefield that had significant amounts of lead projectiles fired into the dirt. Is there any ground water contamination or other issues with lead "leaching"? Nope, as discussed in post #23 of this very thread. Guess that is not a problem then.

Is it true that the guy who won a patent lawsuit did so in a ruling that stated the US Army adopted M855 during the Vietnam war: Did you read the decision and discussion, as in this thread: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....-M855a1-bullet?

The "ballistic requirement" list...what bullets currently meet the specs for performance in soft tissue and barriers; the bullets in the 223 and 308 stickys?? Quite a few of them.

Is mk318 closer to the requirements than M855A1? Certainly bonded SOST works.

Has this article been posted in the thread or on the forum? http://www.americanrifleman.org/arti...all-cartridge/: Yes. The article linked in post #1 of this thread is more accurate...

[KevinB]

Can't we just dump A1 and get past this fiasco...

[Chuck Haggard]

Can't we just dump A1 and get past this fiasco...

That would have been nice. Mk318 for the carbines, AP as needed, leave the M855 on the linked belts, call it a day.


I was talking to a tier 1 guy the other day that I speak to regularly, he was on a rant about the retardery of the a1 round, good bullet, better barrier penetration, hits bad guys harder, but also damn near a proof load as far as port pressure, breaking bolts and cam pins, the guns are getting the feed ramps gouged up, port and throat erosion, etc.

I like 5.56, I think 5.56+P is stupid unless you are going to reengineer the whole platform

[Sixgun_Symphony]

Is there is an executive order mandating a transition to lead free ammunition: No.

Is this why the Army transitioned: No

If so are "leeching" concerns irrelevant: Go to Yorktown, Gettysburg, Verdun, Normandy, or any other battlefield that had significant amounts of lead projectiles fired into the dirt. Is there any ground water contamination or other issues with lead "leaching"? Nope, as discussed in post #23 of this very thread. Guess that is not a problem then.

Is it true that the guy who won a patent lawsuit did so in a ruling that stated the US Army adopted M855 during the Vietnam war: Did you read the decision and discussion, as in this thread: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....-M855a1-bullet?

The "ballistic requirement" list...what bullets currently meet the specs for performance in soft tissue and barriers; the bullets in the 223 and 308 stickys?? Quite a few of them.

Is mk318 closer to the requirements than M855A1? Certainly bonded SOST works.

Has this article been posted in the thread or on the forum? http://www.americanrifleman.org/arti...all-cartridge/: Yes. The article linked in post #1 of this thread is more accurate...

Doc, thank so much for taking the time to reply to my questions. And I'm not trying to sound challenging.. But I am trying to better understand the politics behind M855A1/Mk318 as well as the terminal ballistics of the subject. And again thank you for all the hard work that you put into the subject and I try to read everything you post on this forum among others religiously.

I dont know whats been going on internally in the Army in the last few months, but since I've gotten out in 2012 and most recently I've seen a huge push by individuals for M855A1.. I still keep in touch with several Officers and enlisted. And it defiantly seems like a mindset change towards the ammo has been taking place. For example I was directed to this document http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi.../pdf/12856.pdf when I challenged to idea that a presidential executive order had been issued (to my understanding none existed). I have not read it word for word but I'm not seeing anything mandating the Army to develop a lead-free projectile (or what might have spurred the bismuth tin experiments, and tungsten nylon experiments...) I guess maybe it brought about the research for a lead alternative, but I doubt that the DoD couldnt still use whatever base product they wanted.

That would have been nice. Mk318 for the carbines, AP as needed, leave the M855 on the linked belts, call it a day.


I was talking to a tier 1 guy the other day that I speak to regularly, e was on a rant about the retardery of the a1 round, good bullet, better barrier penetration, hits bad guys harder, but also damn near a proof load as far as port pressure, breaking bolts and cam pins, the guns are getting the feed ramps gouged up, port and throat erosion, etc.

I've been hearing a lot of the same, but without concern for the EPRs other issues.. .