Ammunition: Congress Demands Army and Marine Corps Standardize Rounds

[TiroFijo]

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/12/07/ammunition-congress-demands-army-marine-corps-standardize-rounds/

Will they choose M855A1 or Mk318 or ???

Wil the other round remain an alternative (in limited use, like Mk 262 Mod 1), or will be dropped completely?

[5pins]

They will get the M855A1 because that’s what the Army wants and they are more bigger.

[TAZ]

They will get the M855A1 because that’s what the Army wants and they are more bigger.

Most likely the case unless someone can show that mk318 is a more effective round. Actually, I take that back. No one is going to give a crap about functionality. It will come down to cost.

Mk262 will stick around as it's a special purpose round, for the most part. I can't see either branch forcing DMR/SDM types to use either 318 or 855A1.

[TiroFijo]

Can "barrier" Mk318 survive as a special purpose round?

[rcbusmc24]

We already have the new style magazines in inventory to support the use of M855A1 in our weapons in the warehouses and armories here at Lejuene, they just have not been disseminated out for individual issue at the unit level yet. Personally, I'm taking that as a pretty big clue that we are going to end up with M855A1 at some point in the future, The Brown follower "Brownell's" magazines have not been ordered for a while now, and supposedly these new brown bodied with a blue follower magazines are needed to fix some sort of feed ramp issue with the M855A1 and our M4 carbines. We still have a pretty good supply of M855 here in the ASP for training purposes..... but supposedly in order to keep units at the training level specified by the Training and Readiness manual we have been burning up war stocks now for a few years.

[Dave J]

Can "barrier" Mk318 survive as a special purpose round?

I'd expect MK-318 will remain in production as long as SOCOM wants it. Congress is much less likely to get involved in SOF-peculiar ammo selection, than they are to ask the obvious question as to why the Army and USMC can't agree on a general purpose round, IMHO.

[Zincwarrior]

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/12/07/ammunition-congress-demands-army-marine-corps-standardize-rounds/

Will they choose M855A1 or Mk318 or ???

Wil the other round remain an alternative (in limited use, like Mk 262 Mod 1), or will be dropped completely?

One would have thought this would have been done years ago.

[Unobtanium]

About time. Both deliver the mail just fine.

[Failure2Stop]

About time. Both deliver the mail just fine.

Unless you shoot at steel targets and have a safety of use message related to face deformation and bouncing penetrators.
Or shoot inside shoothouses and don't want to replace your walls every 2 years.

That said, my prediction is that if the USMC can't stave off the uninformed opinion of the current regime, that A1 will be forced into adoption.
A lot of the early issues with A1 has been solved, so the complaints about it are pretty much relegated to training and support.

[noylj]

Personal opinion:
Obviously the Marines don't want anything to do with the Army, but the request makes sense. Even more sense would be asking about the whole initiative.
Just how much does the new lead-free, steel-core copper bullet being specified cost? How reliable is the new lead-free primer? If they aren't using lead-free primers, why the hell are they worrying about lead-free bullets?
In case of a major war, could production this boutique bullet meet the needs of the troops vs mass-produced swaged bullets, or would NEW production of standard bullets be required to keep ammo in the troop's hands?
As a tax-payer, if the new bullet costs even 1 cent more per bullet than a jacketed lead-core with steel penetrator, I would tell them where to shove their "lead-free" agenda and get back to buying ammunition at a reasonable cost.
Unless they show the TACTICAL superiority of the new bullet over any possible lead core bullet, they are WASTING taxpayer money.
I like the fact that the Army thinks nothing of using depleted uranium for lots of different uses, but is cracking down on lead. You want to live in a lead house or a uranium house?

[Unobtanium]

Unless you shoot at steel targets and have a safety of use message related to face deformation and bouncing penetrators.
Or shoot inside shoothouses and don't want to replace your walls every 2 years.

That said, my prediction is that if the USMC can't stave off the uninformed opinion of the current regime, that A1 will be forced into adoption.
A lot of the early issues with A1 has been solved, so the complaints about it are pretty much relegated to training and support.

Ranges would have to be re-vamped, yes. Should cost peanuts compared to what developing and later stealing M855A1's final design cost.

[Al T.]

Army thinks nothing of using depleted uranium for lots of different uses, but is cracking down on lead.

It ain't Big Army, it's a congress driven directive. Think "Red Cockaded Woodpecker" fiasco..............

[RevolverRob]

You want to live in a lead house or a uranium house?

Wha? Depleted Uranium has 60% the radioactivity of natural uranium. Yea...if you uhh powder up a few dozen 30mm DU rounds and inhale it like cocaine, you're not going to be doing so well. But overall the effects of the rounds hitting targets and "powdering" are dissipated into the atmosphere within a few days usually. The half-life of DU exposure in humans is 15-days or so. Which means, if you wash your hands and don't inhale powder from that stuff daily, your entire exposure will be eliminated in about two-weeks.

Whereas in the case of lead rounds, they take considerable time to dissipate from both the environment and the body. And large build-ups tend to leach into the soil and ground water around facilities where there is considerable lead build-up. I'm sure that we don't want to stack up DU like we do lead, either to be honest.

But the long-term towards non-lead bullets and toxic-free (or at least toxic-reduced) primers is the future. And frankly a good one. In the long-term more and more outdoor and indoor ranges will move to lead-free ammunition in general day-to-day life. Make no mistake, eventually the EPA will get on the lead-management band-wagon and start cracking down much harder on ammunition. If the military can lead the way, it will allow faster acceptance among the shooting community, greater manufacturing ability, and reduced cost in terms of production. You look at this as a "waste" of taxpayer dollars. And while I admit, I'd prefer if we spent some tax dollars doing other things. I'm all for investing in overall developmental infrastructure that will help get the future of shooting here in a better way.

[Failure2Stop]

Personal opinion:
Obviously the Marines don't want anything to do with the Army, but the request makes sense. Even more sense would be asking about the whole initiative.
Just how much does the new lead-free, steel-core copper bullet being specified cost? How reliable is the new lead-free primer? If they aren't using lead-free primers, why the hell are they worrying about lead-free bullets?
In case of a major war, could production this boutique bullet meet the needs of the troops vs mass-produced swaged bullets, or would NEW production of standard bullets be required to keep ammo in the troop's hands?
As a tax-payer, if the new bullet costs even 1 cent more per bullet than a jacketed lead-core with steel penetrator, I would tell them where to shove their "lead-free" agenda and get back to buying ammunition at a reasonable cost.
Unless they show the TACTICAL superiority of the new bullet over any possible lead core bullet, they are WASTING taxpayer money.
I like the fact that the Army thinks nothing of using depleted uranium for lots of different uses, but is cracking down on lead. You want to live in a lead house or a uranium house?

A1, no matter personal agenda, crushes bodies.

[Failure2Stop]

Ranges would have to be re-vamped, yes. Should cost peanuts compared to what developing and later stealing M855A1's final design cost.

Range stuff in the military is ridiculously expensive.
I think that the restriction of A1 to operational use only is largely linked to the safety issues in training environments.

[busdriver]

Many mil ranges use frangible. At least in the AF.

[jetfire]

Many mil ranges use frangible. At least in the AF.

Some AF ranges still use those plastic training rounds and the special bolts.

I hate those fucken bolts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Failure2Stop]

Many mil ranges use frangible. At least in the AF.

That is a very AF specific thing.
The major ground branches will rarely use frangible, and only in specific instances use SRTA (blue plastic) for training.
Rezeroing for every training event is a good way to ensure that the maximum amount of personnel never actually have a good zero.
The other issue is that there are more than just M4s as 5.56 consuming platforms.

[DocGKR]

These remain the best articles on this subject:

http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=2879

http://www.gunsandammo.com/uncategorized/m855a1-should-it-be-the-new-round-for-soldiers-and-marines

The USSOCOM/USMC SOST is a superior round for carbines, but Big Army wants M855A1 despite numerous continuing issues. I am also sure Army wants this settled before a potential SecDef Mattis is in charge....

[jetfire]

That is a very AF specific thing.
The major ground branches will rarely use frangible, and only in specific instances use SRTA (blue plastic) for training.
Rezeroing for every training event is a good way to ensure that the maximum amount of personnel never actually have a good zero.
The other issue is that there are more than just M4s as 5.56 consuming platforms.

I can really only speak for my unit, but I know that SRTA is mandated in our case because our range is sort of under the flightline for an international airport. The people at the airport are worried someone is going to shoot down a 737 with an errant 5.56 round.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jeep]

I am also sure Army wants this settled before a potential SecDef Mattis is in charge....

Bingo. I'd also bet that the people pushing this are political appointees in the Department of Army--the same people who caused the Army to spend billions on "green energy" technologies that do not work.

The Washington political class, and its envoys nested in the Pentagon, aren't going to like a Mattis DOD one bit. The idea that the military exists to be so tough and powerful that we win wars and look so tough in peace that no one wants to go to war with us is going to make beltway brains explode.

[DocGKR]

RevolverRob: As noted previously, aerosolized lead from primers and exposed lead on some bullet bases is indeed a problem—particularly on indoor ranges with poor ventilation and inadequate air flow. Of course the solution is to use lead free primers and reverse jacket projectiles without exposed lead bases, like TMJ, JHP, JSP, OTM, as well as monolithic all copper or gilding metal projectiles such as Tac-XP, TSX, GMX, etc.... If launched using lead free primers, how exactly are lead core, reverse jacketed projectiles supposedly causing lead toxicity to shooters? Folks who exercise due diligence and try to identify even one valid scientific study showing that lead from jacketed projectiles fired into earthen berms percolates through the soil into the water table will be frustrated, as none exist. Better yet, journey to the location of any major battle where massive quantities of lead core or even unjacketed solid lead projectiles were used, like Yorktown, Gettysburg, Verdun, Normandy, etc... and check the subterranean ground water for lead contamination––woops there is none. Go to a major CONUS military facility, like NSWC Crane or Ft. Dix, where literally tons of lead core projectiles have been fired into dirt berms for many decades and check the subterranean ground water for contamination—again, NONE, because lead cores from jacketed projectiles are NOT a problem. Lead is dug out of the earth, molded into bullets, and returned to the earth when shot, where the lead can be dug back up and used again...seems like an ideal recycling plan.

[Jeep]

. . . . Lead is dug out of the earth, molded into bullets, and returned to the earth when shot, where the lead can be dug back up and used again...seems like an ideal recycling plan.

It also sounds like a business opportunity in California. Start a company (call it something like "GreenSolutions"), create a 100 page power point "business plan" for digging up the berms on California government ranges, raise some money from your Silicon Valley neighborhood venture funds, and promise the State of California that you will "remove hazardous lead and other metals from California soil using cutting-edge technology" (bulldozers and screens) in return for a very small government subsidy. (You'll need to make sure that the venture funds that back you have all donated money to the politicians who will be giving you the subsidy).

Most importantly, in a continuing effort to prove and improve the technology, the subsidy will help cover the R&D cost of an essentially unlimited supply of Federal 147 gr. FMJ and HST rounds that you will then fire at targets in front of the berms.

It would be a sacrifice, of course, but anything to make California green!

[spinmove_]

It also sounds like a business opportunity in California. Start a company (call it something like "GreenSolutions"), create a 100 page power point "business plan" for digging up the berms on California government ranges, raise some money from your Silicon Valley neighborhood venture funds, and promise the State of California that you will "remove hazardous lead and other metals from California soil using cutting-edge technology" (bulldozers and screens) in return for a very small government subsidy. (You'll need to make sure that the venture funds that back you have all donated money to the politicians who will be giving you the subsidy).

Most importantly, in a continuing effort to prove and improve the technology, the subsidy will help cover the R&D cost of an essentially unlimited supply of Federal 147 gr. FMJ and HST rounds that you will then fire at targets in front of the berms.

It would be a sacrifice, of course, but anything to make California green!

My God...that would be the single best thing that could possibly get me to move to California for any reason whatsoever. Literally using their own mis-guided ideals and fears to leach off of them and then setup a system where one could shoot off as much ammo as one could possibly comsume...all in the name of science and being "green"! I like it!

[Chuck Haggard]

In my observation of some of the lead free primers, lead free does not mean non-toxic.

I think it was the Swedes that started seeing issues with their issued ammo with lead free primers.

[DocGKR]

As we have discussed, lead free primers offer less reliable ignition, have dramatically shorter shelf life, burn hotter and can cause premature/accelerated wear on firearms leading to a much shorter service life, and we don't have a full understanding of the toxicity of some of the compounds used in them-other than that they are great. Also as noted, the issues with aerosolized lead from primers and exposed lead on some bullet bases is primarily associated with indoor ranges utilizing substandard ventilation and insufficient air flow; not such a problem on typical outdoor ranges as generally used for rifle training.

[Chuck Haggard]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26039682

[Unobtanium]

In my observation of some of the lead free primers, lead free does not mean non-toxic.

I think it was the Swedes that started seeing issues with their issued ammo with lead free primers.

IIRC, it was nausea, vomiting, vertigo. Nothing major...

[SeriousStudent]

IIRC, it was nausea, vomiting, vertigo. Nothing major...

Meh. Eating in a military chow hall already does that.

[jetfire]

Meh. Eating in a military chow hall already does that.

A non-Air Force chow hall maybe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeriousStudent]

A non-Air Force chow hall maybe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We turned sneaking into the Kadena enlisted chow hall into an art form.

[HCM]

A non-Air Force chow hall maybe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Speaking of the Air Force, what about reports of copper dust fever among CATM personnel from compressed copper frangible projectiles ?

[jetfire]

Speaking of the Air Force, what about reports of copper dust fever among CATM personnel from compressed copper frangible projectiles ?

First I've heard of it, but it wouldn't surprise me since we use a ton of frangible ammo for qualification non-gun toting personnel. Actually when I think about it, all the ammo that gets shot at BMT is frangible as well.

[psalms144.1]

I'd expect MK-318 will remain in production as long as SOCOM wants it. Congress is much less likely to get involved in SOF-peculiar ammo selection, than they are to ask the obvious question as to why the Army and USMC can't agree on a general purpose round, IMHO.If I'm not mistaken, SOCOM has elected to standardize on M855A1 to avoid having to pay out of their budget for Mk318. Which is a shame, but, as always, budgets mean more than results...

[psalms144.1]

And another thing. If Congress REALLY wanted to save DOD money, they'd do away with all this uniform BS that goes on. Seriously, for DECADES we all wore BDUs and DCUs, and all was well. Then the Corps HAD TO have their own thing, which led the Army to have to adopt the stupidest field uniform in history (unless you're hiding on a paisley couch), and the Air Force to go retro with Army colors on Vietnam tiger stripes, and the Navy to adopt about 17 new uniforms, including, but not limited to, a NON-FIRE-RETARDANT uniform that makes anyone in the water invisible (for those of you not of Navy experience, ship board fires are a MAJOR killer, and sailors going over board happens way too often).

I was giving Active Shooter training at the local Navy Reserve base two weekends back, and there was all kinds of wailing and gnashing of teeth over uniforms, because, now, you can wear the Guacamole green (NWU type 256.87, I believe), but you can ONLY wear it with black boots and black fleece jacket UNLESS you're on deployment or in an "expeditionary" unit, then you can wear tan suede boots and coyote fleece, unless...

This former Army guy seriously wants to know what the actual fuck is going on.

Oh, and the mandatory Transgender Awareness training got more training time than my Active Shooter block. Yep, all is well here. Move along, nothing to see...

[HCM]

If I'm not mistaken, SOCOM has elected to standardize on M855A1 to avoid having to pay out of their budget for Mk318. Which is a shame, but, as always, budgets mean more than results...

It appears M855A1 will be the new standard. USMC is adopting the Gen 3 PMAG and relegating the new army "Enhanced" mag to training only.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?23497-USMC-Chooses-Gen-M3-PMAG-as-New-Issue

[Unobtanium]

If I'm not mistaken, SOCOM has elected to standardize on M855A1 to avoid having to pay out of their budget for Mk318. Which is a shame, but, as always, budgets mean more than results...

What results, exactly, was MK318 surpassing M855A1 in? All I've read are out of date complaints.

Barrel life is fine.
Pressure is lower than M855.
The copper slug in the rear base is fully encased.
SMP-842 keeps bore fouling down, and indeed, I noticed no fouling issues in the 120 or so rounds I played with.

MK318 can't play ball on hard targets like M855A1 can. Of course, auto-glass and the M855A1's propensity to form 2 projectiles vs. 1 (even though they retain similar mass to what's left of MK318 after AG, and penetrate as well or better than MK318...) has formed a few negative proponents, but I find the argument weak given ballistic testing which shows M855A1 tracking plenty straight (copper slug) and punching plenty of gel.

I did run across a lot of M855A1 that was giving me less than stellar accuracy, but I also know plenty of people who shoot <2 MOA with M855A1. MK318 has given me 2-2.5 MOA groups. M855A1 gave me 3.55moa (avg.) groups, and I believe my lot to have been a rather poor example of the breed.

Anyway, I think that a few very vocal opponents of M855A1 have done more to discredit the CURRENT round than anything else.

Yes, issues DID exist in the past. But they are fixed.

*SOCOM can still use browntip and MK262, I'm guessing, as well. M855A1 adds true LAP performance without resorting to M995, and it is HELL on soft targets, unlike 995.

[DocGKR]

Unobtanium, you are more than welcome to believe what you wish, however, which of the two loads best matches the following recommended guidelines:

-- 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

[TiroFijo]

Doc, can you give us a comparison of M855A1 vs Mk318 on each of these poinst, with intermediate barriers such as steel plate/sheet, concrete blocks, auto glass, etc.?

Some points, like "limit fragmentation" seem to have no importance if the penetration of remaining fragments is OK. Mk318 blows its nose too.
"Resist yaw in tissue" is very worthwhile for expanding bullets like the Mk318, but it seems purely dogmatic if the yaw that breaks the M855A1 bullets in (mostly) two pieces is a realiable fragmenting mechanism.
Limit penetration to 12"-18". Why? is there anything wrong if the bullet performs adecuately in the first 18" and then penetrates more?

[Shawn Dodson]

Off topic, but...


...and the Navy to adopt about 17 new uniforms, including, but not limited to, a NON-FIRE-RETARDANT uniform that makes anyone in the water invisible (for those of you not of Navy experience, ship board fires are a MAJOR killer, and sailors going over board happens way too often).

NWU Type I (Blueberries) is/was a shore and in-port uniform and not worn at sea. It replaced the dungarees uniform. The rationale behind the camoflauge design was to camoflauge oil stains, paint and other dirt so sailors could wear their working uniform off base, which was prohibited when dungarees were the working uniform.

[Unobtanium]

Unobtanium, you are more than welcome to believe what you wish, however, which of the two loads best matches the following recommended guidelines:

-- Be blind to impact yaw Both
-- Limit penetration to 12-18” Neither.
-- Resist yaw in tissue, with no yaw earlier than 12” MK318 has less yaw as a whole, but it loses 50% of its mass, while M855A1 loses 20gr to a yawing secondary while the core punches pretty darn straight
-- Continue on shot line after penetrating tissue They both do this more or less from the testing I've seen, although again, MK318 loses much more mass, while M855A1 sacrifices this mass to a secondary projectile (steel tip)
-- Be barrier blind M855A1 wins, here.
-- Limit fragmentation They both absolutely suck at this as they both frag heavily. M855A1 produces less fragmentation by mass, though, if you want to be technical.
-- Perform consistently from 0 – 300 meters M855A1 by a long shot.
-- Be accurate enough to engage human targets to 600 meters


The last point I want to talk more about. All of the people I know who are shooting M855A1 are getting <2 MOA or better. However, I got some a while back that may well have been seconds, or whatever, and the accuracy was similar to M855, with an average of 3.55MOA. I gave some to a friend who has access to issued M855A1, and he was astounded at how shitty the M855A1 I had shot. However...I have seen the same think from MK318 "unknown source" ammo, as well.

I'm going to have to call this last point "manufacturing tolerance dependent" as they both achieve it, and I've seen both fail at it.

What it really boils down to is that M855A1 stretches the performance envelope significantly further than MK318, and is much more capable of penetrating barriers. It's also what the Army is using, and it very obviously is "agenda pushed". Back when you were vehemently against it, it had massive issues, as you stated. Currently though, it has none of these issues (barrel life, bolt life, pressure, etc.)

My main thing is this: both rounds kill stuff. M855A1 kills stuff further away, better. M855A1 penetrates barriers MUCH more effectively (you can't argue about shoot house inadequacies AND argue it doesn't...).

I understand the shoot-house and other issues. I'm sure when M855 incorporated a steel core it was a major stress too, but somehow it was dealt with. Then again, I do not design shoot houses etc. and don't they use frang. anyway?

Other than emotions, I see no reason to strongly dislike M855A1.

[Unobtanium]

Doc, can you give us a comparison of M855A1 vs Mk318 on each of these poinst, with intermediate barriers such as steel plate/sheet, concrete blocks, auto glass, etc.?
5.56 just doesn't have the kinetic energy to deal with concrete blocks reliably. It simply doesn't have the horsepower, no-matter what you shove in the case. I've shot 70gr Browntip at 2900fps and it STILL barely made it through a cinderblock, even though deformation was very very limited and it retained mass like a boss.

Some points, like "limit fragmentation" seem to have no importance if the penetration of remaining fragments is OK. Mk318 blows its nose too. M855A1 frags its jacket, Mk318 frags the whole nose, and is a 30.5gr remaining base.
"Resist yaw in tissue" is very worthwhile for expanding bullets like the Mk318, but it seems purely dogmatic if the yaw that breaks the M855A1 bullets in (mostly) two pieces is a realiable fragmenting mechanism. They both yaw at the extreme ends of their range. The difference is that M855A1 is still performing great well past 400 yards from a 14.5" barrel, while MK318 is a tumbling ice-pick.
Limit penetration to 12"-18". Why? is there anything wrong if the bullet performs adecuately in the first 18" and then penetrates more?


The 12-18" penetration is FBI standards. Not sure why this is germane to the discussion of a purely military round?

[TiroFijo]

AND, M855A1 conforms to the letter (if not the spirit) of Hague, while Mk318 is clearly an expanding bullet.

No matter what we think of the absurdity of the Hague declaration in modern warfare, there is no other country that uses expanding bullets as normal, widespread .mil ammo.

[spinmove_]

AND, M855A1 conforms to the letter (if not the spirit) of Hague, while Mk318 is clearly an expanding bullet.

No matter what we think of the absurdity of the Hague declaration in modern warfare, there is no other country that uses expanding bullets as normal, widespread .mil ammo.

Which I think is stupid and as Americans I think it's time for us to set another precedent and start using expanding ammo.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[Failure2Stop]

The 12-18" penetration is FBI standards. Not sure why this is germane to the discussion of a purely military round?

As military operations become more and more urban, the risk of non-target injury due to overpen is increased.
I do not disagree with this requirement if all else is equal.

[TiroFijo]

Non target injury due to overpenetration, in a military environment? Perhaps special ammo for special occasions...

It is difficult to have a round that penetrates/demolishes barriers (brick walls, sheet metal, etc.) but does not overpenetrate. In a purely LE scenario you can discount many intermediate barriers and only take into account a car or a single drywall, etc. to "bracket" penetration, but in a .mil environment perhaps as much penetration as possible is very desirable.

[Unobtanium]

As military operations become more and more urban, the risk of non-target injury due to overpen is increased.
I do not disagree with this requirement if all else is equal.

The MK318 SOST round penetrates far in excess of this, though, so it's also a non-starter.

[Unobtanium]

Non target injury due to overpenetration, in a military environment? Perhaps special ammo for special occasions...

It is difficult to have a round that penetrates/demolishes barriers (brick walls, sheet metal, etc.) but does not overpenetrate. In a purely LE scenario you can discount many intermediate barriers and only take into account a car or a single drywall, etc. to "bracket" penetration, but in a .mil environment perhaps as much penetration as possible is very desirable.

Bonded ammo meets the criteria. I agree with Dr Roberts on one thing. That bonded TOTM would have been awesome! The closest I can personally get to it is 75gr Gold Dot though, and it does pretty well on all of Dr Robert's points outlined above.

[Failure2Stop]

Non target injury due to overpenetration, in a military environment? Perhaps special ammo for special occasions...

It is difficult to have a round that penetrates/demolishes barriers (brick walls, sheet metal, etc.) but does not overpenetrate. In a purely LE scenario you can discount many intermediate barriers and only take into account a car or a single drywall, etc. to "bracket" penetration, but in a .mil environment perhaps as much penetration as possible is very desirable.

We do have specialty armor-piercing ammunition available. I would much rather issue specialty ammunition to my primary area denial specialists (Automatic Riflemen/Machinegunners) than switch back and forth on my general user.


The MK318 SOST round penetrates far in excess of this, though, so it's also a non-starter.

I wouldn't say that either are non-starters, I'm saying that if all else is equal I'd prefer that "blue team" had standard 12"-18" penetration depth ammunition.
Where would I give up to meet that? Not really sure, but I would list it overall as less critical than overall terminal effect in target.

[TiroFijo]

We do have specialty armor-piercing ammunition available. I would much rather issue specialty ammunition to my primary area denial specialists (Automatic Riflemen/Machinegunners) than switch back and forth on my general user.

I wouldn't say that either are non-starters, I'm saying that if all else is equal I'd prefer that "blue team" had standard 12"-18" penetration depth ammunition.
Where would I give up to meet that? Not really sure, but I would list it overall as less critical than overall terminal effect in target.

I was thinking that "limited penetration" (12"-18" FBI std.) ammo would only be used on certain occasions/environments.

Of course, AP 5.56 ammo penetrates steel well (and is suited for Automatic Riflemen/Machinegunners use) but for general use a round that has better terminal effects on soft tissue woudl be preferred. But perhaps there is a balance in general issue ammo between expansion/fragmentation and some barrier penetration. Historically, for the vast majority of military conflicts, the ammo that penetrates the most has been the preffered option. The russians always struggle to get the most penetration out of their ammo, and in WWII black tip M2 AP was very popular for general use in garands.

[Failure2Stop]

I was thinking that "limited penetration" (12"-18" FBI std.) ammo would only be used on certain occasions/environments.

I understood what you meant, and I was saying that I did not agree with that. Rather, I would rather have my generic user have high-performing ammunition with limited penetration at all times, since the battlefield quickly reduces distance when you're doing your job, thus the general user will always have an overpen concern, whereas if the area-denial kids have a ready supply of hole-punchers they can more easily and effectively select what it is that they use to match their mission and target. Having the GP/assaulter dude switch back and forth on ammo will force him to remember and apply different POIs for different ammo, which is a super bad idea, and in a fluid assault it is pretty much a guarantee that a bunch of dudes won't remember to do an ammo change-over or will reload with the wrong ammo type.



Of course, AP 5.56 ammo penetrates steel well (and is suited for Automatic Riflemen/Machinegunners use) but for general use a round that has better terminal effects on soft tissue woudl be preferred. But perhaps there is a balance in general issue ammo between expansion/fragmentation and some barrier penetration. Historically, for the vast majority of military conflicts, the ammo that penetrates the most has been the preffered option. The russians always struggle to get the most penetration out of their ammo, and in WWII black tip M2 AP was very popular for general use in garands.

Popularity is not a performance standard that has held up to scrutiny.

[TiroFijo]

Just to clarify, "perhaps there is a balance in general issue ammo between expansion/fragmentation and some barrier penetration" was referring to rounds that offer more than decent terminal performance on soft targets (like M855A1) while also exceeding the mythical 18", to gain some added metal/whatever thickness penetration.

[HCM]

Army Round Triggers Problems in Marine M27 Auto Rifle


Preliminary results of an Army test to see how the service's M855A1 5.56mm round performs in Marine Corps weapons show that the enhanced performance round causes reliability and durability problems in the Marine M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, service officials say.


One of the reasons we were doing that test was because of congressional language from last year that said 'you two services need to look at getting to a common round,' so we heard Congress loud and clear last year," Col. Michael Manning, program manager for the Marine Corps Infantry Weapon Systems, told Military.com in a Dec. 15 Interview

The article also discusses the new magpul mag and the merits of Mk318.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/12/20/army-round-triggers-problems-marine-m27-auto-rifle.html?ESRC=army-a_161221.nl

[Unobtanium]

Army Round Triggers Problems in Marine M27 Auto Rifle


The article also discusses the new magpul mag and the merits of Mk318.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/12/20/army-round-triggers-problems-marine-m27-auto-rifle.html?ESRC=army-a_161221.nl

Oh HK. The 416 needed its very own suppressor when it came out so it wouldn't beat itself to death, and now it needs its very own ammo "because reasons". Color me surprised.

[Ed L]

Oh HK. The 416 needed its very own suppressor when it came out so it wouldn't beat itself to death, and now it needs its very own ammo "because reasons". Color me surprised.

The HK416 was designed to function with 5.56mm NATO. The M556A1 had chamber pressures like a proof round and was over pressure, and really ran the piston faster and harder than it was designed for. It would not be a problem to design a heavier piston spring, but then the gun could loose reliable functionality with standard 5.56mm loads.

The M556A1 was causing problems with M4s as well in terms of accelerated wear, parts breakage, and gouging the feed ramps.

[DocGKR]

"The M556A1 was causing problems with M4s as well in terms of accelerated wear, parts breakage, and gouging the feed ramps."

And still doing so in the last few months based on testing by non-Big Army entities...

[Ed L]

And still doing so in the last few months based on testing by non-Big Army entities...

By virtue of the problems exhibited, the round should have been disqualified.

I mean, is it worth better penetration if the round gouges the feedramp, which could cause feeding and reliability problems?

[Unobtanium]

And still doing so in the last few months based on testing by non-Big Army entities...

How? It's pushing less pressure than m855. My rifle cycles it less violently than gold dot...

I only burned 100ish rounds, but my feed ramps look just fine. Not the highest volume test though, I know, but socom already put that to bed.

[Ed L]

How? It's pushing less pressure than m855. My rifle cycles it less violently than gold dot...

I only burned 100ish rounds, but my feed ramps look just fine. Not the highest volume test though, I know, but socom already put that to bed.

The original M855A1 rounds were grossly overpressure--like proof rounds. I am not sure at what point they corrected that with either a different powder or less powder.

Also, I think it is not well planned to release a round that will gouge feed ramps which damages the gun and can cause malfunctions when rounds get caught up on the damaged feed ramp unless magazines to correct this are issued in sufficient numbers that shooters will not have to use legacy magazines.

What happens if they issue 8 magazines to each user of M855A1 and in time the user looses one or two--be it they go bad, get lost, or he executes an emergency reload in training or the battlefield and is unable to recover the magazine. He will need to replace it, and if additional magazines are available that allow the M855A1 to operate without gouging the feedramps he will be forced to dig up a legacy magazine that does not feed the M855A1 in a manner that it will not gouge the feed ramps.

A number of procurement programs are not well thought out and will turn out to be expensive and might not provide us with weapons that work; and if they do work will have limited capabilities. These include much more expensive things than the M855A1. Take a look at the F-35 fighter which is overpriced, undercapable, and does not operate as ordered. It was put into production way too early when many important problems have not been overcome. This is a plane that needs to have the fuel trucks kept cool. I wonder how that will work out in the Middle East. It doesn't do a ot of things that it is supposed to do and may never be able to. Even if it does all the things that it is supposed to be able to do, it will be grossly less capable than individual aircraft designed to meet those goals. By building a plane that the Air Force, Navy, and Marines can all use means aerodynamic and design compromises that result in a grossly less capable aircraft.

In 2009 then Defense Secretary Robert Gates cancelled production of the better performing F-22, at 188 planes. He claimed that greater numbers of F-35s would fill the gap in air superiority. This is nonsense because the F-35 cannot operate in the same way that the F-22 does (as well as not working reliably). In order to get better range out of their AIM-120 air to air missiles, the F-22 goes into super cruise mode and accelerates as it launches the missile. This gives the air-to-air missile 30-40% extra range. The F-35 is incapable of reaching super cruise. It also cannot carry the number of air-to air missiles. as the F-22, and has a lot of problems that should have been resolved long before it got into production at this level.

We have the Zumwalt class 1000 stealth Cruiser which is expensive and problem ridden. Oh, and those 155mm main guns are designed for shore bombardment and cannot be angled for use as anti ship weapons. The automation that allows a really small crew as a cost saving measure means that there are not enough crew to handle damage control--especially if they take some casualties.

Then we have the Littoral combat ship that doesn't work reliably, doesn't carry enough ordnance to engage threats, and whose whole module swapping design has proven to be a lie. The ship lacks the robustness to crooss certain ocean areas at speed, or a design that does not allow for much absorbtion of damage.

Anyway, what all of these programs have in common is that at some stage someone should have required major corrections before they were allowed to proceed forward.

[Unobtanium]

The original M855A1 rounds were grossly overpressure--like proof rounds. I am not sure at what point they corrected that with either a different powder or less powder.

Also, I think it is not well planned to release a round that will gouge feed ramps which damages the gun and can cause malfunctions when rounds get caught up on the damaged feed ramp unless magazines to correct this are issued in sufficient numbers that shooters will not have to use legacy magazines.

What happens if they issue 8 magazines to each user of M855A1 and in time the user looses one or two--be it they go bad, get lost, or he executes an emergency reload in training or the battlefield and is unable to recover the magazine. He will need to replace it, and if additional magazines are available that allow the M855A1 to operate without gouging the feedramps he will be forced to dig up a legacy magazine that does not feed the M855A1 in a manner that it will not gouge the feed ramps.

A number of procurement programs are not well thought out and will turn out to be expensive and might not provide us with weapons that work; and if they do work will have limited capabilities. These include much more expensive things than the M855A1. Take a look at the F-35 fighter which is overpriced, undercapable, and does not operate as ordered. It was put into production way too early when many important problems have not been overcome. This is a plane that needs to have the fuel trucks kept cool. I wonder how that will work out in the Middle East. It doesn't do a ot of things that it is supposed to do and may never be able to. Even if it does all the things that it is supposed to be able to do, it will be grossly less capable than individual aircraft designed to meet those goals. By building a plane that the Air Force, Navy, and Marines can all use means aerodynamic and design compromises that result in a grossly less capable aircraft.

In 2009 then Defense Secretary Robert Gates cancelled production of the better performing F-22, at 188 planes. He claimed that greater numbers of F-35s would fill the gap in air superiority. This is nonsense because the F-35 cannot operate in the same way that the F-22 does (as well as not working reliably). In order to get better range out of their AIM-120 air to air missiles, the F-22 goes into super cruise mode and accelerates as it launches the missile. This gives the air-to-air missile 30-40% extra range. The F-35 is incapable of reaching super cruise. It also cannot carry the number of air-to air missiles. as the F-22, and has a lot of problems that should have been resolved long before it got into production at this level.

We have the Zumwalt class 1000 stealth Cruiser which is expensive and problem ridden. Oh, and those 155mm main guns are designed for shore bombardment and cannot be angled for use as anti ship weapons. The automation that allows a really small crew as a cost saving measure means that there are not enough crew to handle damage control--especially if they take some casualties.

Then we have the Littoral combat ship that doesn't work reliably, doesn't carry enough ordnance to engage threats, and whose whole module swapping design has proven to be a lie. The ship lacks the robustness to crooss certain ocean areas at speed, or a design that does not allow for much absorbtion of damage.

Anyway, what all of these programs have in common is that at some stage someone should have required major corrections before they were allowed to proceed forward.

I think the angle is that fixing the supply chain, as it were, is deemed cheaper than buying new rifles in a new caliber, etc. Which would also need new everything on TOP of that. This opined, military supply chains are not my forte.

[DocGKR]

"I think the angle is that fixing the supply chain, as it were, is deemed cheaper than buying new rifles in a new caliber, etc..."

It certainly will be more lucrative to the vendors involved in that supply chain...

[Unobtanium]

It certainly will be more lucrative to the vendors involved in that supply chain...

Ironically, ATK and ATK Orbital produce both MK318 and M855A1, respectively.

Magpul magazines, I suspect, will save the Tax Payer more money than the military solution of the M855A1 friendly magazines. I'm okay with that...

[Jeep]

What I find amazing is that it has taken the Army many years to find something as simple as a new 5.56 round, and its preferred alternative seems to still be damaging feed ramps if the right magazine isn't used.

To me this is the classic case of the perfect (or perhaps the politically connected) being the enemy of the good, and it is happening almost exactly 50 years after the first fiasco with ammo and the AR platform--a platform that got a lot of Marines killed in the hill fights in Vietnam. In 50 years we ought to be doing better--but we aren't.

Anyway, if the Army can't do better than this, the project ought to be turned over to the USMC with the instructions to (1) choose a working round within 6 months and enter a contract for all services and (2) ignore whether the bullet is perfectly "green" when deciding which of the possibilities to use. Maybe the Marines are less infected with political correctness and toadying up to contractors.

[Unobtanium]

What I find amazing is that it has taken the Army many years to find something as simple as a new 5.56 round, and its preferred alternative seems to still be damaging feed ramps if the right magazine isn't used.

To me this is the classic case of the perfect (or perhaps the politically connected) being the enemy of the good, and it is happening almost exactly 50 years after the first fiasco with ammo and the AR platform--a platform that got a lot of Marines killed in the hill fights in Vietnam. In 50 years we ought to be doing better--but we aren't.

Anyway, if the Army can't do better than this, the project ought to be turned over to the USMC with the instructions to (1) choose a working round within 6 months and enter a contract for all services and (2) ignore whether the bullet is perfectly "green" when deciding which of the possibilities to use. Maybe the Marines are less infected with political correctness and toadying up to contractors.

Mainly, I think the whole thing is bullshit. We should have been using a boat-tailed TBBC styled projectile or something since the 80's or 90's or whenever it came out.

We have M995. it can perf hard things as well as any other 5.56 round.

I think the troops would probably like something like a bonded round just fine.

I do agree with Dr. Roberts that the Gold Dot or similar would do great.

But here we are, with M855A1, and it isn't going to just go away. If people can't see that by now, reading glasses and posts on the internet won't help. It's like watching a Hillary supporter scream for another recount. Trump's in office. M855A1 is here to stay. let's just accept these things.

And M855A1 isn't bad. Yes the mags are needed with the improved feed angle. No, it's not ruining M4s or bolts or barrels, and the complaints about the M27, well, is that with older ammo, or with the latest stuff? because the latest stuff isn't that hot. My rifle shoots it fine and cycles less violently suppressed with M855A1 than it does with Gold Dot .223. So this recent report...was it with recent ammo, or stuff that was sent over in '10? Yeah, that stuff WAS hot.

[Lon]

Doesn't the Geneva Convention prohibit Gold Dot style rounds?

[spinmove_]

Doesn't the Geneva Convention prohibit Gold Dot style rounds?

That's The Hague convention and the US was never part of that.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[TGS]

Doesn't the Geneva Convention prohibit Gold Dot style rounds?


That's The Hague convention and the US was never part of that.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy



The Hague Convention prevents the use of expanding bullets between signatories. The US did sign the 1899 Hague Convention, objected to the IV, 3 Bullet Declaration, but otherwise abides by the Hague Convention's bullet rule, regardless.

The US military shooting terrorists with Gold Dots would not violate the Hague Convention, as they're not uniformed soldiers recognizable to a signatory of the Hague Convention.

[Lon]

Hague, Geneva, I was close. Thanks. Never really paid enough attention to them.

[Failure2Stop]

Hague, Geneva, I was close. Thanks. Never really paid enough attention to them.

Pretty much moot as they have all passed legal review.

[TiroFijo]

Pretty much moot as they have all passed legal review.

Ehem, JAG (american) legal review... If you pick and pay your own lawyer, don't expect him to tear your own case to pieces.

FWIW, pretty much everyone else in the world currently don't share the US opinion on what constitutes a Hague compliant bullet.

[Failure2Stop]

Ehem, JAG (american) legal review... If you pick and pay your own lawyer, don't expect him to tear your own case to pieces.

FWIW, pretty much everyone else in the world currently don't share the US opinion on what constitutes a Hague compliant bullet.

Since nobody uses a Hague compliant bullet anyway I don't see us getting too worried about it.



Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899
The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,

Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,

Declare as follows:

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

SS109 bullets, at normal velocities, flatten and expand in the human body, and pretty much all have an exposed base, and have a cannelure.
Arguing about the mechanism of injury from a projectile against a document from over a hundred years ago is ridiculous anyway.

Aaaaaaaaaand, the only reason that we have JAG review is literally to tear the case apart so it will stand in international court, should it wind up there. Yes, they build a case in support, but one doesn't arrive there unless previously closely examined. So, basically, we've been shooting up people for the better part of 15 years now with various types of "hollow-point" ammunition, and there have been right around 0 international legal complaints about it, with plenty of NATO and Non-NATO nations following suit with regard to small-arms ammunition, so I'm kinda leaning toward the notion that we're ok on this.

[Mike C]

we've been shooting up people for the better part of 15 years now with various types of "hollow-point" ammunition, and there have been right around 0 international legal complaints about it, with plenty of NATO and Non-NATO nations following suit with regard to small-arms ammunition, so I'm kinda leaning toward the notion that we're ok on this.

I'm of the frame of mind that if they're around to complain you're doing it wrong. Fuck the international community and their sensitivity.

Sorry still in EU and listening to all kinds of bullshit about how fucked we are for not voting in Hillary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Failure2Stop]

Sorry still in EU and listening to all kinds of bullshit about how fucked we are for not voting in Hillary.

You're hanging out with the wrong crowd then. Don't need that kind of negativity in your life just when we're about to MAGA!!!

[Mike C]

You're hanging out with the wrong crowd then. Don't need that kind of negativity in your life just when we're about to MAGA!!!

I hear that. Most of my extended family here is pretty right wing. The rest are a bunch of idiots. It's times like these that I pretend to be lost and play stupid with my French.

It's good to be in a place where I'm competent enough to always know what is going on but still be able to play stupid. I don't know how much longer I'll be able to keep it up though as I think some of them are starting to catch on.


I can't wait to be back in the US oh, and fuck yes let's MAGA! I'm interested in seeing what happens come 20JAN.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[psalms144.1]

I think the angle is that fixing the supply chain, as it were, is deemed cheaper than buying new rifles in a new caliber, etc. Which would also need new everything on TOP of that. This opined, military supply chains are not my forte.They aren't mine, either, though procurement irregularities are... I think Ed's EXCEPTIONALLY well stated point is, why the actual FUCK would anyone want to use ammunition that SPECIFICALLY requires a different magazine in order to use without damage to the rifle, ESPECIALLY when there's a perfectly capable, effective and efficient alternative available? I'm not using any issued rifle ammo right now, and none of my rifles will ever be fed M855A1...

[TiroFijo]

Failure2Stop,

I may agree with your view on expanding/fragmenting bullets, but let's not confuse our (and JAG's) opinion with "the truth" on this issue, the international community thinks otherwise, and legal matters are more complicated than technical issues, age/wording of documents, and realities of war...

The wording and intention of the Hague accord was perfectly clear in 1899, when high velocity FMJ bullets did not normally fragment on impact with soft tissue, and the phrase "such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions" obviously refers to the point of the bullet (as jurisprudence shows), and "such as" is meant as an example, not a definitive list. Several european countries even have made the effort to change their FMJ 7.62 NATO ammo so that it would not fragment on impact with soft tissue, like M193, M855, and many other FMJ loads do under certain circunstances. Many NATO countries have FMJ bullets as their "normal" 338 LM sniper ammo.

The past 15 years or so of shooting JHP ammo was against irregular forces. That's why everyone has been using whatever they want on the insurgents/ISIS.

Jordan and Saudi Arabia have some 6.8 SPC ammo loaded with soft points, but they are not general issue, and they are figthing against irregular forces too.

[Failure2Stop]

The past 15 years or so of shooting JHP ammo was against irregular forces. That's why everyone has been using whatever they want on the insurgents/ISIS.

1: We have shot a whole lot of conventional forces all over the globe since the introduction of the M16 and the NATO standard 5.56.
2: Conventional forces make no distinction on opposing forces when issuing ammunition.



I may agree with your view on expanding/fragmenting bullets, but let's not confuse our (and JAG's) opinion with "the truth" on this issue, the international community thinks otherwise, and legal matters are more complicated than technical issues, age/wording of documents, and realities of war...

Where are all of these legal complaints about M193, M855, Mk 316, Mk 318, Mk 319 Mk 248 Mod 0/1, M118LR, Mk 262 Mod 0/1, RAUFOS, SLAP, etc?


The wording and intention of the Hague accord was perfectly clear in 1899, when high velocity FMJ bullets did not normally fragment on impact with soft tissue, and the phrase "such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions" obviously refers to the point of the bullet (as jurisprudence shows), and "such as" is meant as an example, not a definitive list. Several european countries even have made the effort to change their FMJ 7.62 NATO ammo so that it would not fragment on impact with soft tissue, like M193, M855, and many other FMJ loads do under certain circunstances. Many NATO countries have FMJ bullets as their "normal" 338 LM sniper ammo.

Yup, those nations that choose to handicap and degrade their military sure do seem to do silly shit. I'm not inclined to give a single f**k about them. Those in our government that actually care about our warfighters don't seem to gather many f***s for them either.

Really though, small arms account for a very small percentage of human injury, suffering, and death in conflict. Against an advanced military, it is the supporting arms that do the heavy lifting, and while it's perfectly acceptable to throw a hand-grenade into a room full of folks but there is an issue with shooting someone with an open tip bullet just illustrates how fantastically ridiculous the whole argument is.

[Unobtanium]

All I know, is that it's inhumane and illegal to shoot a deer with FMJ. We will use JHP, Gold Dot, etc. on our own citizens without a second thought (police). Not a single damn reason not to use them on our enemies.

[HCM]

All I know, is that it's inhumane and illegal to shoot a deer with FMJ.

Citation please ?

What U.S. State or federal law prohibits the use of FMJ ammo for hunting?

[Doug MacRay]

Citation please ?

What U.S. State or federal law prohibits the use of FMJ ammo for hunting?

Oregon: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/regulations/weapons.asp

Illinois: https://www.dnr.illinois.gov/hunting/Pages/HuntingDevicesandAmmunition.aspx

Nebraska: https://outdoornebraska.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Deer-regs-2015.pdf

Wisconsin: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WardenWire/WardenWire_Lookup.asp?id=211

New Mexico: www.wildlife.state.nm.us/download/.../hunting/_2015_16-New-Mexico-Hunting-Rules-and-info2.pdf

North Dakota: https://gf.nd.gov/gnf/regulations/docs/deer/deer-guide.pdf

Kentucky: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/301/002/172.htm

Arkansas: http://www.agfc.com/hunting/pages/huntingregulationsdeer.aspx

Nevada: www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/ndoworg/Content/.../2012_Hunting_Guide-LR.pdf

Kansas: www.kansas.com/sports/outdoors/article1120654.html

Do I really need to go on? It's a simple matter of ethics and practicality, not to mention legality. Don't take big game with FMJ's.

[Unobtanium]

Oregon: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/regulations/weapons.asp

Illinois: https://www.dnr.illinois.gov/hunting/Pages/HuntingDevicesandAmmunition.aspx

Nebraska: https://outdoornebraska.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Deer-regs-2015.pdf

Wisconsin: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WardenWire/WardenWire_Lookup.asp?id=211

New Mexico: www.wildlife.state.nm.us/download/.../hunting/_2015_16-New-Mexico-Hunting-Rules-and-info2.pdf

North Dakota: https://gf.nd.gov/gnf/regulations/docs/deer/deer-guide.pdf

Kentucky: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/301/002/172.htm

Arkansas: http://www.agfc.com/hunting/pages/huntingregulationsdeer.aspx

Nevada: www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/ndoworg/Content/.../2012_Hunting_Guide-LR.pdf

Kansas: www.kansas.com/sports/outdoors/article1120654.html

Do I really need to go on? It's a simple matter of ethics and practicality, not to mention legality. Don't take big game with FMJ's.

Thanks, and we both know that list could be much much longer, lol

[Unobtanium]

Several people have asked me where I am getting my data from on M855A1. Well, some of it comes from .mil sources. This .pdf mirrors what I've been saying about the chamber pressure of M855A1, at 54,200, while M855 is higher at 55,000. Sadly, the .pdf no-longer works, but here is the Google remnants of it, red added for emphasis:

St. Marks Powder
www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/faintich.pdf
May 16, 2006 - Propellant 5.56mm round. Velocity(ft/s) Pressure(psi). WC 844. Standard M855. 3020. 55,000. SMP® 842 Green 5.56mm. 3020. 54,200 ...

But that wasn't good enough for me. No, I wanted to find out for myself, so I went to the local WalMart and picked some M855A1 up myself. Prior to this, I researched what handloaders have been doing wtih SMP-842. Here is what I found:
https://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/49004-smp-842/






I just read the velocities on their brochure. I am pushing a 62 grain bullet to 3,070 out of a 16" gun using the SMP 842 without signs of pressure.

Dolomite

Cool...I am getting 3059fps average out of MY 16" gun (with Surefire Suppressor) with M855A1...
FYI, the velocities were impressively consistent.
3077
3056
3073
3037
3035
3077
3073
3069
3058
3035

ES: 42fps
SD: 17.5

Unfortunately, the ammunition I had was variable in accuracy. The best group measured approximately 2 MOA, while the worse measured over 4 MOA, with the average of half a dozen 10 shot groups being 3.55 MOA. The rifle itself typically averages 1-1.4MOA with me behind it shooting 75gr Gold Dot .223, and is a 16.1" Daniel Defense CHF .gov profile barrel with a Nightforce 1-4 on top and a Surefire 556-212 on the end. Other people and entities who are testing M855A1 are showing <2 MOA from it. I believe that it is very possible that I got some ammunition that failed accuracy QA/QC, which is why wal-mart ran a sale on it.

To compare, the MK318 SOST was averaging around 2-2.5 MOA for me out of the same rifle, as I recall, but those were verified "Firsts" from an LE distributor who ships direct from Federal.






My experience has been this:

Primed lake city brass

62 grain SS 109

Crimped

16" AR15

25.7=~3,045

25.8=~3,070

25.9=~3,095

This is in my gun. I assume no responsibility in the data I just posted in your firearm.

Dolomite


Okay, now we know the charge weights that equate to what velocities that one loader is getting with M855A1's powder, SMP-842, while using M855 legacy projectiles (of the same weight). He's getting 3045fps from his 16" rifle using SMP-842 25.7gr in LC primed brass. And I'm getting 3059fps from M855A1...so let's crack one open and see how things stack up!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7Arw-J66qg

Okay...people have, on their OWN, with no knowledge shared, worked up AN IDENTICAL load to what the US military is using, and are getting IDENTICAL VELOCITIES using IDENTICAL WEIGHT BULLETS in IDENTICAL CASES with IDENTICAL CHARGES OF THE SAME POWDER and are seeing NO PRESSURE SIGNS. I would also note that IDENTICAL powder charges net IDENTICAL velocity results between M855 legacy, and M855A1, when using the same cases and SMP-842 powder. This seems to indicate, to me at least, that the M855A1 projectile itself is not causing increases in pressure, or we'd see a corresponding increase or decrease or SOMETHING with velocity...


I have previously cited open source government data regarding reliability testing, etc. about M855A1, but actually putting my hands on it, weighing the charges, comparing velocities with handloaders using the same components...it makes the theoretical, tangible.


All this said, chamber pressure CAN have an effect on component life. However, historically, the military has not given a damn. A perfect example is the 1984 USMC test using the M16A1 and M16A2 and M193 and M855 (which had a few thousand PSI higher chamber pressure). In 6,000 rounds, the M855 firing weapons saw drastic accuracy reduction, while the M193 firing rifles saw virtually none. (MK262 also saw issues when CRANE was adopting it...but noone bags on MK262...)

However, this is not what I am hearing about M855A1 and barrel life, but even if it WERE, M855 vs. M193 set the standard regarding how this little saga is going to play out. As did the move from the rifle to carbine gas system. The US military has a long history of sacrificing durability for CAPABILITY, and that's what is going to happen here, especially considering that everything I can put my hands on seems to indicate that only realistically 10-20% durability has theoretically been lost.

Just my .02, and how I arrived there.

[HCM]

Oregon: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/regulations/weapons.asp

Illinois: https://www.dnr.illinois.gov/hunting/Pages/HuntingDevicesandAmmunition.aspx

Nebraska: https://outdoornebraska.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Deer-regs-2015.pdf

Wisconsin: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WardenWire/WardenWire_Lookup.asp?id=211

New Mexico: www.wildlife.state.nm.us/download/.../hunting/_2015_16-New-Mexico-Hunting-Rules-and-info2.pdf

North Dakota: https://gf.nd.gov/gnf/regulations/docs/deer/deer-guide.pdf

Kentucky: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/301/002/172.htm

Arkansas: http://www.agfc.com/hunting/pages/huntingregulationsdeer.aspx

Nevada: www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/ndoworg/Content/.../2012_Hunting_Guide-LR.pdf

Kansas: www.kansas.com/sports/outdoors/article1120654.html

Do I really need to go on? It's a simple matter of ethics and practicality, not to mention legality. Don't take big game with FMJ's.

No one mentioned ethics - I asked about illegal.

I've lived in 5 states as an adult. One requires expanding ammo for handgun hunting and prohibits lead ammunition for hunting. The other four have no ammunition restrictions other than prohibiting big game hunting with rim fires.

[Doug MacRay]

No one mentioned ethics - I asked about illegal.

I've lived in 5 states as an adult. One requires expanding ammo for handgun hunting and prohibits lead ammunition for hunting. The other four have no ammunition restrictions other than prohibiting big game hunting with rim fires.

What were these states if you don't mind me asking? I listed the first 10 states I could find with a simple Google search, but I'd be surprised if most states didn't have similar restrictions.

[Brian T]

Texas doesnt have a restriction on FMJ, for varmint or game.