M855A1 EPR Officially Adopted By US Marine Corps

[TiroFijo]

Not much of a surprise here...

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/12/13/m855a1-epr-officially-adopted-us-marine-corps/

Are the early M855A1 "issues" still present, or are they solved/ameliorated?

[JRB]

Not much of a surprise here...

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/12/13/m855a1-epr-officially-adopted-us-marine-corps/

Are the early M855A1 "issues" still present, or are they solved/ameliorated?

Rifles that are close to wallered out tend to get pushed over the edge by M855A1 - it will accelerate gas ring failures. I also saw a few case/head separations with older M4's too, likely already on the verge of failing with M855 due to gas port erosion.
I personally noticed groups opening up with early M855A1 over the old M855 too - lots of older rifles shooting 4-6 MOA.
The M27 issues the Marines were having were of great interest to me, but friends of mine in line units that do a lot of range time tell me they haven't seen any accelerated barrel or throat wear on otherwise serviceable weapons.

The past two ranges I've done with more recent batches of M855A1 have tighter groups than the early stuff. By which I mean 2.5-3.5 MOA @ 100M is common from a typical duty-issued M4 or M16.
The weapons that had failures with early M855A1 were close to failing already, IMHO, so the accelerated wear is something of a non-issue - it just forces unit armorers to actually get things fixed instead of slathering it with more CLP and changing the magazine and calling it good, which happens WAY too often.

[DocGKR]

"Are the early M855A1 "issues" still present, or are they solved/ameliorated?"

Some fixed, some not. Weapon service life is still shorter w/M855A1...

[TiroFijo]

Did they back down the chamber/port pressure a little? I never saw the point of going almost +P to gain just a little velocity, since the BC is already higher than M855.

[DocGKR]

This was a pure political decision, as ALL of the voluminous research collected by MARCORSYSCOM and other non-Big Army test entities unequivocally showed that M855A1 was NOT barrier blind and did accelerate wear on systems, for example the M27 has its service life reduced by 33% or so when firing M855A1 vs. M855, Mk262, Mk318, etc...

[Jeep]

Might it be cost? The services are still starved for money, and if the Marines can join in an Army contract to get 855A1 cheaper than alternative ammo, maybe it makes sense to buy this now while knowing full well that it will required increased rifle/carbine purchases in a few years.

Congress, after all, can't send Marines off to war without rifles/carbines so it might be an easier way to get money out of Congress than it would be asking for more money for the ammo budget.

Of course, to the extent such beltway logic makes sense, it would only do so if the cost per round is less, and I have no idea about that.

[JHC]

Some users told me it works better a couple years ago. Non scientific of course.

[ranger]

I am curious if the M855A1 with be the "war" ammo and if the services will use up their stocks of M855 for qualification and training (and thereby reduce the wear and tear of M855A1 on the service weapons).

[JHC]

I am curious if the M855A1 with be the "war" ammo and if the services will use up their stocks of M855 for qualification and training (and thereby reduce the wear and tear of M855A1 on the service weapons).

It's been the Army's war ammo for some time. See post #8. https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?17744-M855A1-SBR-gel-test

I've heard similiar in general. I don't know what the standard is to be "barrier blind" however.

[ranger]

It's been the Army's war ammo for some time. See post #8. https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?17744-M855A1-SBR-gel-test

I've heard similiar in general. I don't know what the standard is to be "barrier blind" however.

I was asking if the services are using M855A1 as the training ammo or M855. I understand that M855A1 is the "war shots".

[Kevin B.]

I was asking if the services are using M855A1 as the training ammo or M855. I understand that M855A1 is the "war shots".

M855A1 is being used for training.

[Wake27]

855A1 is being used, once the on hand stock of 855 is used up. More or less.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[witchking777]

They should just stick with MK318,Doc didn't ATK release a Mod 1 version of this round?

[DocGKR]

There is no doubt that M855A1 offers better terminal performance than M855 "greentip" at the cost of accelerated weapon wear in carbines. M855A1 also offers better penetration of steel and some other barriers than M855, however, M855A1 still breaks apart after car windshields. Also M995 is still needed to punch through peer level body armor.

There is a lead free version of Mk318 SOST.

Independent testing by non-Big Army facilities shows that any of the Mk318 variants is a better general purpose choice for carbines than M855A1. M855A1 is good for linked ammo in LMG's.

[Failure2Stop]

Might it be cost? The services are still starved for money, and if the Marines can join in an Army contract to get 855A1 cheaper than alternative ammo, maybe it makes sense to buy this now while knowing full well that it will required increased rifle/carbine purchases in a few years.

Congress, after all, can't send Marines off to war without rifles/carbines so it might be an easier way to get money out of Congress than it would be asking for more money for the ammo budget.

Of course, to the extent such beltway logic makes sense, it would only do so if the cost per round is less, and I have no idea about that.

It was a 100% political decision.

[Jeep]

It was a 100% political decision.

Political in the sense that the ammo is, for example, made in the correct Congressional district, or political in the sense that, for example, the Pentagon told the Marines, "buy this so Congress can't claim that we spent bazillions while infringing a patent on ammo no one really wants?"

[Failure2Stop]

Political in the sense that the ammo is, for example, made in the correct Congressional district, or political in the sense that, for example, the Pentagon told the Marines, "buy this so Congress can't claim that we spent bazillions while infringing a patent on ammo no one really wants?"

Basically it was a demand that the US military standardize on a single primary ammunition type, despite the fact that there is no actual need for that to happen.
Some of it comes around to the need for the program in general to be a "win", and it wouldn't be a win if the other primary ground force stuck to their guns that it was not good and refused to use it.
There was no way that the Army was going to transition over to Mk318 after all the debacle that was the A1 program, and so, for reasons not based on threat, need, performance, or weapon compatibility, the USMC adopted A1.

[Jeep]

Basically it was a demand that the US military standardize on a single primary ammunition type, despite the fact that there is no actual need for that to happen.
Some of it comes around to the need for the program in general to be a "win", and it wouldn't be a win if the other primary ground force stuck to their guns that it was not good and refused to use it.
There was no way that the Army was going to transition over to Mk318 after all the debacle that was the A1 program, and so, for reasons not based on threat, need, performance, or weapon compatibility, the USMC adopted A1.

So once again the echelons removed from reality put their own parochial -bureaucratic interests above those of the troops?

[SeriousStudent]

So once again the echelons removed from reality put their own parochial -bureaucratic interests above those of the troops?

https://i.imgur.com/mHmd3bd.png

[Ed L]

This is something that should have crossed someone's desk and gotten a "no-go" on.

--Higher pressure that reduces the life of the components of the guns.
--bullet's point gouges feed ramp to cause reliability problems

stamp it no go.

[Wake27]

This is something that should have crossed someone's desk and gotten a "no-go" on.

--Higher pressure that reduces the life of the components of the guns.
--bullet's point gouges feed ramp to cause reliability problems

stamp it no go.

The second one is entirely corrected by using Gen M3 PMAGs. You guys need to keep in mind that this round is still an improvement, maybe not the best option but better than what he had.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Unobtanium]

This is something that should have crossed someone's desk and gotten a "no-go" on.

--Higher pressure that reduces the life of the components of the guns.
--bullet's point gouges feed ramp to cause reliability problems

stamp it no go.

-It's lower pressure than M855
-Quality barrels have currently been tested to well past 10K rounds with it, on a moderate schedule (some full auto, lots of heavy semi-auto), and are doing fine.
-Gen 3 PMAG's work fine with it, into the tens of thousands of chamberings (barrel done fare before...)
-Haters gonna hate

[JHC]

-It's lower pressure than M855
-Quality barrels have currently been tested to well past 10K rounds with it, on a moderate schedule (some full auto, lots of heavy semi-auto), and are doing fine.
-Gen 3 PMAG's work fine with it, into the tens of thousands of chamberings (barrel done fare before...)
-Haters gonna hate

Yep. I suppose if they picked one carbine optimized round and another for the LMGs that need linked ammo in belts there would be a different negative reaction from another direction.

[DocGKR]

Unobtanium--your information is inaccurate. Science, not hate.

[ranger]

As far as wear and tear - relative to the size of the US Army and USMC, there are very few M4s or any other Infantry weapon getting used at any one time. If you look at the "tooth to tail" ratio of Combat Arms at the point of the spear - how many M4s are consuming a high volume diet of any ammo? When my unit returned from Iraq, we literally handed off all our personal weapons at the bottom of the stairs of the aircraft when we arrived CONUS and those weapons went straight to the Depot for inspection, repairs, etc. I am sure someone can point to a few high volume M4 users but it will be no big deal to rotate out the high volume weapons. The "special" units get whatever they need/want.

[Jeep]

Of course, if you can get a better performing round for roughly the same cost, why use the round that is tougher on your carbines, even if they will be going to depot for inspection and repair?

[KhanRad]

http://i.imgur.com/0hHuKvn.jpg?1 (https://imgur.com/0hHuKvn)

Surely they though that that exposed steel core would cause severe ramp and chamber erosion. My though would be that an easy fix(improvement) would be to simply roll on the jacket from the front like a traditional FMJ bullet. Might loose some terminal effects ability, but at least it would be "less" hard on guns. Then again, it might turn it simply into a more expensive M855, but that wouldn't deter the govt from wanting it because it is "green".

[Unobtanium]

Unobtanium--your information is inaccurate. Science, not hate.

Roger. It's the best I currently have, and is 2nd hand. I do know first hand that it runs 3050 out of a 16" barrel, and doesn't cycle any more violently than some other ammo I shoot.

[Ed L]

Unobtanium--your information is inaccurate. Science, not hate.

I think I'll go with DocGKR's knowledge, info and experience with this one.

[DocGKR]

This is just like XM17 MHS; it is obfuscation and skulduggery by Big Army on how they are conducting testing and what details they are reporting--the proof remains in the pudding, so to speak, as the dramatically shortened service life in M4's and M27's firing M855A1 is proven beyond doubt.

[Unobtanium]

I think I'll go with DocGKR's knowledge, info and experience with this one.

We are both correct. I spoke with him earlier. I'll let him elaborate if he wishes, as I don't know what's public and what's not.

I will say this: politics at play, if you don't have the info, dont run it in your gun, as you won't be making an informed decision.

[willie]

Doc, please comment on the adopted round's lethality against non armor wearing persons.

[DocGKR]

Definitely works better than M193 or M855, but there are better options for carbine use....

[Morbidbattlecry]

Two questions just so my information is up to date

1. Is it still true they dumped the Bismuth insert and the construction of the bullet is just now copper and the steel penetrator?

2. I heard once that it would have been cheaper to issue everyone MK262 then it was to give everyone M855A1(cost per round i mean)?

[Unobtanium]

Two questions just so my information is up to date

1. Is it still true they dumped the Bismuth insert and the construction of the bullet is just now copper and the steel penetrator?
Yes
2. I heard once that it would have been cheaper to issue everyone MK262 then it was to give everyone M855A1(cost per round i mean)?
I think the cost is a sticky point. Depends on what kind of scale we are talking. Early production, or current, etc.


Current construction is a hardened steel "arrow" tip that is coated with a rust preventative that gives it a bronze appearance. Below this is a copper "slug", which makes up the bottom half or so of the projectile, and the two parts are held together by a gilding metal jacket.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Definitely works better than M193 or M855, but there are better options for carbine use....

Are they going to stick with the significantly higher pressures on this load? Input I've received on this from armorers who are repairing/maintaining carbines shooting this load is very bad with regard to weapons wear and breakage.

[Wake27]

Are they going to stick with the significantly higher pressures on this load? Input I've received on this from armorers who are repairing/maintaining carbines shooting this load is very bad with regard to weapons wear and breakage.

I don’t see the military choosing it just to make such a significant change to it. I think it’s here to stay. That being said, I believe our current process for deciding when to replace a barrel is ridiculous so the optimist in me wants to believe that maybe the higher pressure will force a better system to be implemented.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wayne Dobbs]

It's going to barrels and bolts and uppers, too, at some point. It's going to blow up (and already has) Bushmasters and the like at the cyclic rate since they don't have NATO chambers, despite their markings.

[Wake27]

It's going to barrels and bolts and uppers, too, at some point. It's going to blow up (and already has) Bushmasters and the like at the cyclic rate since they don't have NATO chambers, despite their markings.

Luckily we don’t use stuff like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Unobtanium]

The issue is more complex, re:pressure.

[witchking777]

Since we never signed the Hague document,why not do like Oprah does? " Tactical Bonded for you,her,Tactical Bonded for everyone! Look under your seats people!"

[Unobtanium]

Since we never signed the Hague document,why not do like Oprah does? " Tactical Bonded for you,her,Tactical Bonded for everyone! Look under your seats people!"

Because it does poorly on hard homogeneous barriers, and t hat's part of the criteria, is my guess.

[DocGKR]

The best criteria developed to date for non-AP duty ammo is the "8 Points of Light" as delineated by SSA Buford Boone while he was supervisor at the FBI BRF; ammo that meets these requirements tends to be safe and successful in service use.

[KeeFus]

The best criteria developed to date for non-AP duty ammo is the "8 Points of Light" as delineated by SSA Buford Boone while he was supervisor at the FBI BRF; ammo that meets these requirements tends to be safe and successful in service use.

Page 13: https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2017/armament/Zhou19394.pdf

[JHC]

Page 13: https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2017/armament/Zhou19394.pdf

Thanks that's a pretty nice ref doc.

A couple general questions:

1. Why would a Mil standard include a limit on penetration of the enemy as seems reasonable for LE ammo? Why constrain the design with that limit in a warfare context (for a general issue load incl belt feds)?

2. "Be barrier blind" seems so open ended. Barrier blind to what? At some point the barrier will become too much right?

Would I be correct to assume there is a commonly accepted definition of what barriers the ammo is expected to be blind too?

Is there a different list of expected barriers for CONUS LE vs the Mil application?

[BWT]

Regarding your second point, JHC.

I’m with you on barrier blind. How barrier blind is the optimal amount before we’re concerned about collateral damage?

I think that answer will be different for Military than LE, but still I’ve always pondered that.

Where’s the tipping point? Where you’re hitting ice-pick penetration (like I imagine M995) or ineffectiveness against something such as Auto Glass (such as various match style loadings)?

God Bless,

Brandon