M855A1 article [GRAPHIC - NSFW]

[DocGKR]

Here is a link to the the best open source article I've seen detailing the myriad problems associated with M855A1: http://www.gunsandammo.com/201...oldiers-and-marines/ (http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/03/07/m855a1-should-it-be-the-new-round-for-soldiers-and-marines/).

[JDM]

Interesting read. I was a little shocked to read the 5.5 MOA bit.

[TGS]

Interesting read. I was a little shocked to read the 5.5 MOA bit.

Definitely.

And the $32 mil bit, as well. Yet critics say it'd be too expensive to switch to 276 Pederson, 280 Enfield, 6.43 Swiss, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC.....

[DocGKR]

There have been recent lots of M855 "greentip" that have shot 6 MOA. While most early lots of M855A1 have been shooting around 2 MOA, since the contract allows 5.5 MOA, eventually lots will be that bad...

$32 mil is a very LOW figure; the real amount is substantially higher if you look at the entire Army "green" M855 ammo program going back to the late 1990's failed "green" M855 tungsten-nylon efforts.

[Kyle Reese]

There have been recent lots of M855 "greentip" that have shot 6 MOA. While most early lots of M855A1 have been shooting around 2 MOA, since the contract allows 5.5 MOA, eventually lots will be that bad...

$32 mil is a very LOW figure; the real amount is substantially higher if you look at the entire Army "green" M855 ammo program going back to the late 1990's failed "green" M855 tungsten-nylon efforts.

5.5 MOA?! I would hope these lots are rejected, but have a feeling that they would not be.

[DocGKR]

The contract specifically allows a 5.5 MOA accuracy acceptance, so why would the lot be rejected?

[Kyle Reese]

The contract specifically allows a 5.5 MOA accuracy acceptance, so why would the lot be rejected?

Wishful thinking on my part.

[Joseph B.]

Anyone have a link or copy of the “contract” stating 5.5 MOA? I am wondering what the exact verbiage is and how the requirement are being measured. Is this 5.5 MOA used in a M4 Carbine 14.5 inch length 1:7 twist, NATO chambered barrel? Is this being measured by a standard M16 A2/A4 or a test specific, pressure specific testing barrel? At what distances is the testing taking place?

If I remember correctly the M855 round in the standard M16A2 rifle, 20 inch length 1:7 twist, NATO chambered barrel, was 3 MOA at 300 meters? It’s been a while since of broke out my old SAMG books to read up on it, but I am fairly sure that was the standard.

I am interested in the issues of the new rounds coming out; I would have gone the other way for testing using M193 for general training (possibly a copper jacked zinc core bullet for the hippies), something like a Vmax for general issue for two legged critters (yeah I know that would require a change to current rules of war, etc) and the old M855 or M995 for barrier, with the M856 for tracer, etc. I was also under the impression that the new “green” M855A1 round was to be designed specific to the standard issue M4 Carbine, is that correct or would the round replace general supply for all 5.56mm weapon systems?

[DocGKR]

3 MOA was typical for M855 greentip we shot in the late 1980's and early 1990's. With the post 9/11 ramp up in ammo production, the accuracy requirement was relaxed to reduce the number of rejected lots...

[Joseph B.]

Man talk about a terrible idea, you would have thought the testing requirements would have improved so that GI Joe would have the best ammo possible.

GKR, what are your thoughts on the V-max 50-60 grain round for human use? Putting all the laws of war stuff aside, my unprofessional opinion is that it drops deer and hogs like nobody’s business. Obviously not my first choice for barrier penetration, body armor or glass, but I like what I see on the animals I shoot with it. I am also a big fan of soft point for close up shooting, seems to cause pretty good round cavity at closer ranges. My last deployment I ran 3 mags of MK262 and the rest with M855, I am a believer in the different rounds for different applications theory. I prefer the match grade stuff in a carbine for precision work, but like being able to punch through car doors and radiators.

I am no expert on ballistics, kinetic transfer or internal cavity, just trying to relate what I see in 4 legged critter hunting vs 2 legged critter hunting.

[Chuck Haggard]

Would have made far more sense, IMHO, to use mk318 for carbines and just keep the M855 loaded for the SAWs. 5.5MOA means very little from a belt fed gun.

[DocGKR]

Mr. Bell, take a look here: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19881. The 50-60 gr PT projectiles are basically varmint bullets; they will work fine for unobstructed frontal shots, but can result in poor performance through intermediate barriers and on oblique shots on larger individuals.

[Joseph B.]

Nice write up and thanks for posting the link! I agree with your assesment here:


At this time, given the current ammo choices available via the standard green/white side military supply system, for a general purpose carbine, I'd load my mags with Mk318 Mod0 if available. For long range shooting the Mk262 Mod1 is optimal. A couple of mags of M995 AP for barriers wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Also, interesting info on the V-max, as I said my knowledge has been limited to critter killing. Currently my carbine setup is a 16 inch 1:9 twist, Wilson combat match barrel, with Federal XM193 (black box) for training and Remington 55gr Soft Point, with every 5th round being M855 for home defense. I may look to swap the M855 out with the Mk 318 and do some “redneck testing”.

Thanks for the info!

[DocGKR]

Why not shoot the more effective Federal TBBC, Winchester bonded, BH 50 gr TSX, Speer Gold Dot, or Rem CLUB?

[Suvorov]

How much does the "green" part weigh into the fielding of this round? It seems absurd to me that we will willingly rip a region apart with DU rounds, but then give our boots on the ground a turd bullet just because it makes Hippies happy.

[JeffJ]

I think absurd is a requirement for government projects

[EMC]

How much does the "green" part weigh into the fielding of this round? It seems absurd to me that we will willingly rip a region apart with DU rounds, but then give our boots on the ground a turd bullet just because it makes Hippies happy.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The military, especially the Army, will go to great great lengths to keep environmentalists happy at the expense of our troops.

[iakdrago]

5.5 MOA--if I were a soldier I'd be pissed. That's well within the range of a WASR10 shooting cheap steal cased ammo.

[MechEng]

The more component parts you add to a bullet design, the harder it is to keep consistent uniformity in large batches of ammo and thus the precision and accuracy drops. Just my $0.02 and I'm only speculating here. The performance limitations of the bullets design probably drove the requirement of 5.5 MOA and not the other way around, i.e. requirement driving the design. We all know designing a bullet capable of sub 2 MOA is within the realm of the possible but precision cost money and in the DOD acquisition world, cost is an independent variable that drives everything. Then add on top of that the pressure to get something to the field quickly that is "Green".

[Joseph B.]

GKR, my reason for the SP’s and M855 is that I have experience with them, know what they will do and that gives me some comfort (especially with the house/neighborhood issues. I like the way SP’s deform, tumble and do not over penetrate, but I like keeping the SS109 round every fifth round in case I have to deal with a vehicle. To be honest I have taken the M855’s out and put them back in several times, I tend to change my idea on it fairly regularly. I would like to find a round that is more general purpose, maybe one of the bonded rounds. But I just lack the time in finding what’s on the market and putting it through my “redneck” testing, so that I know what the round will and won’t do. I will be checking the rounds you mentioned out, and see if I can’t pick up a few boxes for testing during the combat rifle course I am running the end of the month. I appreciate the information and round recommendation.

As for the 5.5 MOA stuff, I agree that it is absolutely absurd. I thought 3 MOA was retarded, with today’s technology; there is no reason why we can’t have 1 MOA standards for a general purpose combat round. To be honest I think it’s almost criminal, and the fact that it happens on a lot of the equipment and weapons being rapidly fielded is what really gets my blood about to boil. The M110 SWS comes to mind, I mean really a “Sniper rifle” that can’t hold 1 MOA, and some reports as bad as 8 MOA (I personally was shooting 3-4 MOA with one with less than 200rds through it). WTF? I mean for the amount of money the DoD is paying for this junk, you would think it would at least be on par with our LE and commercially available equipment.

[rsa-otc]

What ever happened to the search for a round that could reach out and touch someone with authority at longer ranges like we are seeing in A-stan. It seems to me that at 5+ MOA would negate that rounds effestiveness at longer ranges. :confused:

[DocGKR]

Joseph Bell--M855 is one of the WORST loads available for punching through automobile windshields--it tends to come apart and have insufficient penetration, as illustrated on page 15 here: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf.

rsa-otc--Current M855 "greentip" has been shooting as bad as 6 MOA since 9/11...why do you think so many military shooters have gone to other loads, like Mk262, for any shots requiring precision? See page 6 here: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf.

[DocGKR]

The article author is not a random internet wannabe or pseudo-expert; he is a decorated, combat experienced military veteran, as well as one of the most respected LE officers on the west coast. Over the years I have shared data with his VERY large and influential agency regarding wound ballistics, post OIS incident forensics, LE ammunition selection, firearms testing issues, and body armor test protocols.

The Army's "green" bullet program has been a BIG failure that has cost the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars. Aerosolized lead from primers and exposed lead on bullet bases is indeed a problem. Of course the solution is to use lead free primers and reverse jacket projectiles without exposed lead bases. I have yet to see a good study showing that lead in berms percolates through the soil into the water table. If launched using lead free primers, how exactly are lead core, reverse jacketed projectiles supposedly causing lead toxicity to shooters? So why is the Army insisting on lead free projectiles? As described previously, the Army's first very expensive attempt at environmentally friendly lead-free "green" ammo, the tungsten-nylon core "green" M855 ammunition was poorly conceived, badly implemented, did not work, and has turned out to be highly toxic, as discovered at Camp Edwards.

The bismuth-tin core M855 LFS did NOT work as advertised and was another giant costly FAILURE. Lots of experienced engineers and scientists identified problems with the bismuth–tin core LFS projectile, but the Big Army chose to ignore all this advice.

M855A1 is a good general purpose load for MG's, but NOT the optimal choice for carbines/rifles. It doesn't help that the recent Big Army briefings on the topic are filled with misleading statements and outright falsehoods.

M855A1 is definitely more accurate than recent M855, about par with Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip”, while less accurate than Mk262. Current M855A1 is shooting about 2 MOA––however these are projectiles built on the old inefficient, more costly BAM, since to date, M855A1 has not successfully been run on the SCAMP line. IF M855A1 is ever able to be successfully built on SCAMP, then who knows where accuracy will be. Unfortunately, since the contract allows 5.5 MOA, eventually lots will be accepted with reduced accuracy, exactly as occurred with M855 “greentip” and M118LR produced following the post 9/11 ramp up in ammo production and concomitant need to relax accuracy requirements to reduce the number of rejected lots…

From a general soft tissue terminal performance perspective, M855A1 is better and more consistent than M855 and Mk262, offering similar terminal performance to Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip”. M855A1 is definitely not barrier blind when punching through automobile windshields—both Mk318 and “browntip” are better at barriers like automobile windshields. M855A1 does penetrate steel and cinder block better than M855. M855A1 can defeat compressed LIII polyethelene hard armor plates just like current M855. Neither M855, M855A1, Mk318, nor “browntip” can penetrate current eSAPI armor If we go into combat against a true peer competitor nation who issues equivalent hard armor, M855A1 is not going to be any more effective than current M855; all our troops are going to need to be issued mass quantities of M995 if they want to have any hope of penetrating the personal armor of the opposition in such a scenario.

There have been a few glowing reports coming out of Army units describing great battlefield M855A1 terminal performance when it was latter learned that the Soldiers in question had actually been shooting Mk318 SOST—interestingly the Army has not bothered to correct this misinformation.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me… Having been twice duped by the Big Army’s meretricious claims of M855 “green” and M855 LFS, the Marine Corps decided to finally exercise due diligence and conduct their own study on the merits of M855A1 vs. Mk318—this outstanding comprehensive study was fully funded and controlled by the USMC. Yet the Army has done EVERYTHING possible to try to control, inhibit, limit, and restrict distribution of the Marine Corps findings—just look at COL Hall’s asinine behavior this week trying to prevent the Marines from releasing data to other DOD and allied end-users.

The Army does NOT want the truth revealed about several areas of M855A1:

–– The true per cartridge cost of M855A1, as well as the full cost of the Army “green” ammo program.
–– How the Army misappropriated the patent protected M855A1 design from an outside vendor and what that act of malfeasance has cost taxpayers.
–– That M855A1 has so far only successfully been manufactured on the old inefficient, costly BAM and not on the SCAMP line.
–– How the increased chamber pressure of M855A1 contributes to premature bolt and other part failures, including decreased barrel life/increased port erosion, as well as issues with damaged flash hiders.
–– There is increased fouling from the dirty propellant used with M855A1.
–– That the M855A1 accuracy standard is over twice as large as the Mk318 contract requirement.
–– The different trajectory of M855A1 compared to M855 and M856.
–– That M855A1 is NOT blind to common barriers.

Note that M855A1 is an ATK/Lake City design, while Mk318 Mod0 is an ATK/Federal Cartridge design—either way ATK will be making a profit.

The M855A1 program is a damning indictment of the utter FAILURE of the Army procurement system to rapidly and effectively respond to the needs of our Nation’s troops—especially in time of war. Why has it taken over a decade and hundreds of millions of tax payer funds to develop what is essentially a product improved 1960’s era Bronze Tip bullet? How come M855A1 costs twice as much as Mk318 and is also more expensive than the COTS Mk262 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip”? Why does the Army need a lead free combat round? If one is truly needed, then the already approved, safety certified, in service COTS 70 gr Optimal "browntip" seems to be a more viable solution for carbines and rifles than the problematic M855A1.

While M855A1 does have better accuracy, more consistent terminal performance, and better barrier capability than M855 "green tip", in a military setting I would currently prefer Mk318 Mod0 or 70 gr "brown tip" for carbine use over M855A1. LE agencies and civilians have even better choices.

[TGS]

Gary Roberts 2012!

[Joseph B.]

Joseph Bell--M855 is one of the WORST loads available for punching through automobile windshields--it tends to come apart and have insufficient penetration, as illustrated on page 15 here: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf.


That is an interesting report. My personal experience has been pretty good with M855 and vehicle glass, as well as punching through the sheet metal, etc.

648649650651

I am not really qualified to comment on worst or best, but I do believe in what I have seen, done, etc. As I said before I am willing and planning to run some redneck testing on the other rounds, but until then I am going to have to stick with what I know works. No disrespect inteneded, I see you apear to be an expert in ballistic testing, and I am not dismissing your informations, or advice. I just need time to play with the different rounds for myself and then I would feel more comfortable in doing an ammo swap.

That said, getting back to the topic. I have yet to fire Mil issue M855 that had above 2-3 MOA performance, and I have shot a lot of it. I spent 2.5 years on the range teaching deploying soldiers how to shoot. I am wondering where the reports of as much as 6 MOA has come from? Is this just some service member laying claim, or is this an experinced individual who ran actual test's on group sizes in controlled settings?

[Odin Bravo One]

In addition to other testing.........

during the SCAR testing of 2005, 2006, 2007, and the Mk20 feasibility assessment of 2009, all current military types of 5.56mm ammunition were tested for accuracy and reliability. Since the M4A1 in it's current configuration was/is the rifle the SCAR was designed to replace, it was measured against the SCAR in all accuracy and reliability testing conducted.


I am all for a better mousetrap, widget, gizmo, do-hicky, bullet, whatever. I am not terribly concerned about accuracy, so long as it is reasonable. I don't know a whole lot of people who can shoot better than 2 or 3 minutes under stress, but having baseline mechanical accuracy that is worse than that, just adds to the equation. A total equation that results in 8 minutes or worse is unacceptable.

As for long range shooting...........I don't even bother with 5.56mm. It is "good enough" at close and medium range, but comes up seriously wanting in terms of performance beyond a couple hundred yards. Even the "magical" 762 that we are told is the answer to all of our problems comes up wanting at the near side of long range. If you really want to engage bad people at extended ranges, one needs to select the right tool for the task at hand. 5.56mm isn't it.

[DocGKR]

As usual, SeanM is right on!

Mr. Bell—the reports of M855 with 6 MOA accuracy come directly from lot testing at Lake City on ammunition that was accepted for DOD use based on a waiver of the normal accuracy requirement, as well as testing by NSWC Crane and the U.S. Marine Corps on issued lots of ammunition--I sincerely hope these organizations had experienced individuals actually running the tests and that they were performed in controlled settings…

The characteristics of an ideal performing general purpose rifle projectile were described in commentary by SSA Buford Boone of the FBI BRF:

-- Penetration of 12 to 18 inches
-- No impact AOA induced variations
-- Blind to barriers
-- No deviation from shot line after impact
-- Minimal fragmentation
-- Consistent terminal performance from 0 – 300 meters
-- Sufficient accuracy to hit threat targets out to 600 meters

The photos you included of shots to vehicles appear to illustrate numerous hits spread over front windshields—these are reminiscent of the typical forensic findings identified when vehicles fail to stop at a military checkpoint and are hit with multiple shots, often fired full auto. If the first shot does not fully breach the windshield, the multitude of additional follow on shots may finally get through intact. In addition, vehicles found OCONUS often do not have the same type of laminated auto windshields required on vehicles sold in the U.S.

The typical LE CONUS vehicle engagement setting is quite different. Shots are frequently made at close range, officers often have a limited time in which only a few shots at most can be fired, with the added complication of potentially innocent individuals inside the vehicle. As a result, it is extremely important for the initial shot to fully penetrate the windshield, remain on the initial trajectory without deviation, and fully retain bullet mass without fragmentation to ensure appropriate effects on the targeted threat and no one else.

As shown directly below:653

M855 frequently fragments after hitting a typical CONUS double or triple laminated automobile windshield, leading to trajectory deviation, and inadequate penetration; it is quite obvious that M855 is not barrier blind, that it suffers from inconsistent terminal performance, as well as the AOA induced variations identified by the JSWB-IPT. Additionally, lots with waived accuracy requirements may not offer sufficient accuracy. In short, M855 can fail to meet all seven of the characteristics identified by the FBI BRF. On the other hand, barrier blind ammunition like the Fed TBBC and Win bonded do in fact meet all of these requirements. Perhaps that is why NO major LE agencies use M855 any more, yet innumerable organizations now issue one of the barrier blind loads mentioned in the second paragraph here: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19881…where I come from, we call that a clue.

[Joseph B.]

Gary, thank you for the phone call and detailed information! I appreciate that you took the time to get spun-up a bit on the testing, reports and performances. Very good talking with you sir.

[Prdator]

Doc,

Thanks for posting all the Awesome Information!!!!
I find it amazing that with all the "brain" power the .mil has that they cant figure out the same bullets that work well for hunting, normal work very well for bad guys.....

[DocGKR]

Unfortunately, most hunting projectiles are not Hague compliant...of course, that brings up the question of whether the politically motivated 100 year old Hague convention restrictions are still relevant (see: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19937)...

[Prdator]

Unfortunately, most hunting projectiles are not Hague compliant...of course, that brings up the question of whether the politically motivated 100 year old Hague convention restrictions are still relevant (see: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19937)...



Concur,
I've NO idea why we would be held to the Hauge, in a War on Terror.......

Thanks for all you do, man!!!

[DanH]

I'd care a lot more about the Hague conventions if the people who seem to scream the loudest about our people following those conventions would scream just as loud when the people we are fighting don't follow them.

I'd offer to hold my breath till that happens but they would be just as happy to see me turn blue.

[JMS]

$32 mil is a very LOW figure; the real amount is substantially higher if you look at the entire Army "green" M855 ammo program going back to the late 1990's failed "green" M855 tungsten-nylon efforts.

....and now add to that repair/replacement costs due to feed-ramp/ barrel extension wear from the exposed penetrator, shavings from same being introduced into the chamber/barrel, chamber pressure that's halfway to that of a proof load beating up the guns and causing a faster wear-rate on the entire M16 FOW and other patterns; cost of replacing optics with a specified BDC "recipe" that doesn't match those currently fielded (ACOGs, in particular, but certain thermal and image-intensification optic reticles would also be affected) (not likely to happen, since the PowerPoint insists that the ballistics match; GOTTA be fact, if it's in a PowerPoint...).

Oh, and the settlement to Liberty Ammunition for the theft of their bullet design....

$Tens of millions here and there, all added up, we start to talk about REAL money.

[BaiHu]

A bit of an update/necro-post:


The Army projects that the use of green 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm ammunition could eliminate the purchase of 3,683 metric tons of lead between 2013 and 2018.

Green bullets, like the M855A1, have been touted for their enhanced performance standards, such as better hard-target penetration, more consistent performance against soft targets and significantly increased distances of these effects.

Officials also expect a similar “greening” to occur with the 7.62 mm version. However, reports from after the M855A1 ammo came out cast some doubts on green bullet performance.

.....Ballistic experts also noted that the green M855A1 would not be substantially more deadly than its lead predecessor.

“There is not a bullet in this world that will do that,” said Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research. “Even if you take the guy’s heart apart, he can still shoot back at you for 15 seconds because he’s still got enough oxygen in the blood in his brain to do it.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/24/getting-the-lead-out-literally-u-s-army-plans-switch-to-green-bullets/#ixzz2a565tk1n

Anything new other than a slow news day dragging this up again??

[Rich]

There have been recent lots of M855 "greentip" that have shot 6 MOA. While most early lots of M855A1 have been shooting around 2 MOA, since the contract allows 5.5 MOA, eventually lots will be that bad...

$32 mil is a very LOW figure; the real amount is substantially higher if you look at the entire Army "green" M855 ammo program going back to the late 1990's failed "green" M855 tungsten-nylon efforts.

+1
I happen to have one of those 6moa lots

[iakdrago]

+1
I happen to have one of those 6moa lots

They have been more frequent since the ammo crunch (at least for me). I've been getting better accuracy out of WOLF as of late...

[Kevin B.]

My experience with M855A1 is limited, but I have shot about 2k of it over the last month. So far, it has been accurate enough for me. Groups at 100m have been 3 MOA or better out of a DD 10.5" and a standard M4.

[JHC]

My experience with M855A1 is limited, but I have shot about 2k of it over the last month. So far, it has been accurate enough for me. Groups at 100m have been 3 MOA or better out of a DD 10.5" and a standard M4.

An OCONUS end user friend of mine tells me it does work as advertised insofar as better with the windshields/car bodies. FWIW.

[Unobtanium]

Sorry for the necro, but...


...I had heard that the USMC was transitioning from MK318 to the M855A1?

[JMS]

Consider from the start that the Corps gets something like $.07 of each DoD dollar; that, in the raw, M855A1 is about 2x the cost of "traditional" lead-based ammo; and that all of the info Doc pushed above was factual at the time of posting, and remains so.

Given also the current environment of shrinking operational and procurement budgets...

Unless something's DRAMATICALLY changed since this, for example: http://www.marcorsyscom.marines.mil/News/PressReleaseArticleDisplay/tabid/8007/Article/154627/iws-civilian-wins-award-for-improved-rifle-ammunition-work.aspx

... not only no, but HELL no.

Even if we take the oddball position that Doc's info is somehow bad gouge, somebody from within the Corps (fewer resources, but better testing protocols that depend more upon using the item, and not nearly as much on modeling, as anything from Picatinny does -- i.e., outside the organization that's been, and still is to this day, touting M855A1 as the self-lickingest of self-licking ice cream cones....) has provided the test-bed info upon which the financial decision has been made.

[JMS]

....he said foolishly, forgetting to mention that the Corps is still buying/using regular 'ol M855, and hasn't made the decision to go to either M855A1 OR Mk318, yet.

I said "has been made," when I should have said "will probably be made." That test was pretty damning of the A1.

[Unobtanium]

It seems to me that some people love M855A1, and some people hate it. I've spoken with people who feel both ways about it, both of which "camps" have used it. One group says they saw a 10% reduction in barrel life, one group says it had the barrel life of a .300WM. I've yet to find a ballistics topic that is current that seems so divided as this one. I am curious what the USMC goes with.

[DocGKR]

Setting aside manufacturing, financial, and environmental issues, there has only been one thorough, independent test of M855A1 separate from U.S. Army influence and pressure. As noted previously, in that exhaustive testing numerous internal ballistic, external ballistic, and terminal ballistic issues were noted with M855A1.

[mjshee1049]

On 10 Mar 2012 at 9:37am DocGKR said:

“ …. M855A1 is definitely more accurate than recent M855, about par with Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip”, while less accurate than Mk262. Current M855A1 is shooting about 2 MOA––however these are projectiles built on the old inefficient, more costly BAM, since to date, M855A1 has not successfully been run on the SCAMP line. IF M855A1 is ever able to be successfully built on SCAMP, then who knows where accuracy will be. … “

DocGKR,

Comment/Question:

In another life (early 1970s) I was a minor bit-player (trust me … very, very minor) in the above-mentioned Small Caliber Ammunition Modernization Program (SCAMP) at Frankford Arsenal/Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant which, at that time, concentrated on the M193 round.

Are there any data which compares the characteristics of the products resulting from BAM and SCAMP manufacturing technologies?

[Unobtanium]

The video and imagery I have of the 100m testing does not impress me, really. I don't think it's worth the accelerated wear and tear.

[DocGKR]

No, it is not--particularly given other readily available options that work as well or better without the deficits associated with A1. But then what do I know, as I am just a dentist...

[Chuck Haggard]

I truly think, and not just ranting here, seriously, that everyone involved in the M855a1 push, or anything to do with lead free ammo, should be fired. What a retarded waste of time and money when better solutions were right there the whole time.

[Unobtanium]

No, it is not--particularly given other readily available options that work as well or better without the deficits associated with A1. But then what do I know, as I am just a dentist...

I think the big deal is that it came out before MK318, and it is relatively nasty compared to M855.

http://i59.tinypic.com/2vdmt7s.jpg

[DocGKR]

SOST was available first. M855A1 offers similar damage to M193 and M855, but with more consistency.

[Unobtanium]

SOST was available first. M855A1 offers similar damage to M193 and M855, but with more consistency.

M855A1 came out in 2010. When was MK318 out?

[DocGKR]

The initial batches of the 77 gr bonded TOTM version of SOST were tested by USMC around 2006-2007 and first publicly mentioned in 2008: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniii8524.pdf

The type classification and official adoption of the Mk318 62 gr non-bonded version of SOST was first revealed in 2009: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniii8524.pdf

Big Army was playing catch-up and did not want to get eclipsed by another SOCOM load like Mk262...

[Unobtanium]

The initial batches of the 77 gr bonded TOTM version of SOST were tested by USMC around 2006-2007 and first publicly mentioned in 2008: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniii8524.pdf

The type classification and official adoption of the Mk318 62 gr non-bonded version of SOST was first revealed in 2009: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniii8524.pdf

Big Army was playing catch-up and did not want to get eclipsed by another SOCOM load like Mk262...

I wonder who is behind MK318MOD1...it looks...so much like another project from Liberty, scaled up a few grains and re-profiled...

Also, to be fair, the M855A1 I've seen videos of being shot through windshields into gel did MUCH better than the M855 I've shot into cars. Was it anything special? No. but compared to 855 and 193, it was a vast improvement.

[Failure2Stop]

I wonder who is behind MK318MOD1...it looks...so much like another project from Liberty, scaled up a few grains and re-profiled...

Also, to be fair, the M855A1 I've seen videos of being shot through windshields into gel did MUCH better than the M855 I've shot into cars. Was it anything special? No. but compared to 855 and 193, it was a vast improvement.
It would be a challenge to make something that performed unilaterally worse than M855...

[DocGKR]

"I wonder who is behind MK318MOD1...it looks...so much like another project from Liberty, scaled up a few grains and re-profiled...

Also, to be fair, the M855A1 I've seen videos of being shot through windshields into gel did MUCH better than the M855 I've shot into cars. Was it anything special? No. but compared to 855 and 193, it was a vast improvement."

I would respectfully disagree. M855A1 still sucks against auto windshields. Also, to me the ATK designed Mk318 looks a lot like a modified version of ATK's TBBC bullet that they have been producing for over a quarter of a century.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RYwUPr35rLw/S95mb4fOCiI/AAAAAAAAAkM/tMIZ338z0hg/s1600/MK+318+MOD+0.png

http://2010.uploaded.fresh.co.il/2010/05/25/89710612.jpg
TBBC

[TiroFijo]

SOST was available first. M855A1 offers similar damage to M193 and M855A1, but with more consistency.

The big question is: does the US military wants to adopt a non Hague compliant bullet for widespread use (not only CT or police operations), or do they want to stick to an improved fragmenting bullet that could still pass muster? The USA is not a Hague signatary, but it has always complied with it, as well as all other non signature countries.

No matter what JAG says, they don't make the laws of war, and the use of an exposed lead expanding bullet (no matter the "barrier" in the name) won't fool anyone in the rest of the world. Now if the US wants to boldly go into expanding ammo for everybody it does not matter. We all know the Hague rules are quite dated.

[Chuck Haggard]

My understanding of the mk318 is that it doesn't expand, it fragments and loses the whole front end, hence loophole in the wording of the Hague language.

[TiroFijo]

Expansion and fragmentation threshold would depend on impact velocity, and what is impacted...

In any case, be asured that no one outside the USA would be fooled by lenguage, you can only spin doctor it so much.

[DocGKR]

Carefully read the Hague convention. It clearly states that: "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."

Take close look at most FMJ bullts; does the jacket entirely cover the core or is the lead base exposed? For several decades ammo engineers have known that all Spitzer style FMJ bullets will yaw in tissue and then travel base forward. Bullet engineers also know how to make bullets without an exposed core at the base. Despite knowing that the bullet is going to yaw in tissue, most nation's have clearly chosen to leave their nation's military bullets with an exposed core at the bullet base; one can only surmise that this is an attempt to create a bullet that acts a JSP when it yaws over. The Hague convention clearly states that the jacket must cover the entire bullet core--it does not make an exception for the bullet base. Thus I would argue that almost all current military bullets, such as 7.62x54 mm Type L FMJ, 7.62x39 mm M43 FMJ, 7.62x51 mm SS77 FMJ, 5.56 mm SS109 actually willfully violate the Hague convention.

[TiroFijo]

One could nit pick, bend the words, looophole and argue whatever you want, lawyers do it all the time for their clients... but to actually pass international muster is quite another thing.

You know well that many NATO countries purposely changed their FMJ bullets so that they do not fragment on impact. Now try to tell them, the russian and chinese, and the red cross that Mk318 is Hague compliant... :D

The other question is: will other major countries issue expanding bullets for all, even if the Hague line is crossed? Their most recent designs are with emphasis on hard barrier penetration, perhaps even armour piercing rounds have a better shot at being adopted instead of FMJ or expanding ammo if they think their adversaries might issue hard plates for everyone like the US.

[DocGKR]

Hold on. There is no nit picking, no bending words, no loop holes. The Hague Convention clearly and unequivocally states that the ENTIRE CORE must be covered. If the entire core of the bullet is not covered, including the base, then the bullet is not Hague compliant. The only people bending words are by those individuals who willfully ignore what the Hague Convention unequivocally states and who pretends what it clearly states actually means something else. It is really very simple--if the core is not completely covered, then the bullet is not compliant.

Mk318 is fully compliant with the 1907 Hague Convention Article 23e (the one the U.S. signed) as it is NOT "calculated to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury".

Personally I find the Hague Convention guidelines on small arms quite an anachronism, in need of significant updating, and about as relevant as the Hague Conventions prohibition on "the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other new methods of a similar nature".

[TiroFijo]

Please...

"It is really very simple--if the core is not completely covered, then the bullet is not compliant." Tell this to ALL the nations in the world (including the USA), they seem to think otherwise... poor misguided (or evil?) people, all these years making open bottom FMJ rounds so they would tumble and act like expanding bullets :rolleyes:

"Mk318 is fully compliant with the 1907 Hague Convention Article 23e (the one the U.S. signed) as it is NOT "calculated to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury". This is also contrary to the historic view of ALL the Hague signataries, and red cross. Good luck arguing this in the Hague Courts...

At the moment nobody cares about shooting irregular armies/guerrillas/terrorists with HP/expanding bullets. This is not covered by Hague anyway. And in the case of HP bullets (OTM if you want to be PC) the argument about increased accuracy by JAG makes sense, at least for sniper use. Note that other NATO coutries use FMJ bullets for most of their sniper ammo, in spite of the accuracy advantage of OTM bullets. They do use OTM bullets for CT/irregular war, but that is another thing.

But when the time comes to shoot it out with a regular army, the issue WILL pop up. And even though we all agree that that Hague convention on bullets is dated due to an imprecise definition of "unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury", the media war can be just as important (or more) than the military war. There will be denouncing of american using inhumane, banned dum-dum bullets, and the other party will use expanding/exploding bullets as well.

It is important to realize this, and act accordingly. I don't know what the best course of action is, I fully realice the advantages of expanding bullets in THIS war, but what about the next ones?

[DocGKR]

"Tell this to ALL the nations in the world (including the USA), they seem to think otherwise... poor misguided (or evil?) people, all these years making open bottom FMJ rounds so they would tumble and act like expanding bullets"

How can any literate person think otherwise--the Hague wording is very clear and unambiguous.

Additionally, many military FMJ projectiles fragment and/or flatten when contacting tissue at closer ranges. This is actually hyper-expansion. Therefore, such fragmenting projectiles are also technically in clear violation of the language used in the Hague Convention that prohibits expanding bullets. It is disingenuous to pretend to continue to follow the Hague Convention when it is so simple to prove that no country actually does.

Recent international law of war conferences have acknowledged that the Hague Convention is only violated if the intent of projectile selection is to cause unnecessary suffering, thus acknowledging that some suffering is unavoidable on the battlefield. The language of the Hague Declaration was likely created with good intention, but is utterly flawed by complete ignorance of the true mechanisms of wound ballistics. The declaration should be looked at in the context of the times it was written. The participants had as little understanding of modern wound ballistics as they did of modern medicine (ex. Penicillin wasn't discovered until 1928).

Mk318 is less destructive than commonly used LE rifle ammunition, as well as many other military weapons such as grenades, mines, mortars, artillery, rockets, bombs, CBU’s, FAE’s, and thermobarics. It is patently ludicrous to conclude that incapacitating dangerous opponents in combat while using a rifle bullet like the Mk318 that is less destructive than some deforming bullets legally relied on daily by LE agencies is somehow inhumane and unlawful, while wounding or killing the same enemy using much more powerful and destructive explosive ordnance is approved and condoned. This is neither logical nor just and in fact does nothing to limit the severity of battlefield casualties.

In many respects, the use of deforming LE type ammunition during modern combat is far more humane, as accurate and effective ammunition reduces the need for multiple shots--decreasing the chance of shots missing the intended opponent and striking innocent civilians. Deforming projectiles also mitigate the potential of innocent bystanders getting hit by bullets which first perforate the target. They may also reduce the number of times a dangerous opponent must be shot, potentially limiting the amount of surgical intervention needed to control hemorrhage.

More than 100 years later, it may be time for Congress, the President, as well as the international community to re-evaluate the outmoded and archaic 1899 Hague Convention's prohibition against routine combat use of the standard deforming ammunition commonly used by LE personnel. The Hague Declaration’s guidelines are no longer relevant for today’s urban battlefield with its close intermixing of innocent civilians and irregular combatants. Perhaps the best option for the international community is to stop trying to regulate projectiles based on their outward appearance, but instead adopt performance based criteria. 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.

[Unobtanium]

I would respectfully disagree. M855A1 still sucks against auto windshields. Also, to me the ATK designed Mk318 looks a lot like a modified version of ATK's TBBC bullet that they have been producing for over a quarter of a century.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RYwUPr35rLw/S95mb4fOCiI/AAAAAAAAAkM/tMIZ338z0hg/s1600/MK+318+MOD+0.png

http://2010.uploaded.fresh.co.il/2010/05/25/89710612.jpg
TBBC

I was referencing the mod 1.

Here is the windshield test data video from liberty. I wouldn't really say m855 a1 "sucks on windshields".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap8O9ArPjWg

[DocGKR]

First, well designed projectiles do not break apart against automobile windshields, they continue on initial shot line after penetrating tissue, they don't fragment in tissue.

Second, M855A1 is made at Lake City by ATK from a stolen Liberty design. Where was that Liberty load in the video made and with what projectile? Just because it looks similar to M855A1 does not mean it is the same thing.

[Jeep]

How can any literate person think otherwise--the Hague wording is very clear and unambiguous.

Additionally, many military FMJ projectiles fragment and/or flatten when contacting tissue at closer ranges. This is actually hyper-expansion. Therefore, such fragmenting projectiles are also technically in clear violation of the language used in the Hague Convention that prohibits expanding bullets. It is disingenuous to pretend to continue to follow the Hague Convention when it is so simple to prove that no country actually does.

Recent international law of war conferences have acknowledged that the Hague Convention is only violated if the intent of projectile selection is to cause unnecessary suffering, thus acknowledging that some suffering is unavoidable on the battlefield. The language of the Hague Declaration was likely created with good intention, but is utterly flawed by complete ignorance of the true mechanisms of wound ballistics. The declaration should be looked at in the context of the times it was written. The participants had as little understanding of modern wound ballistics as they did of modern medicine (ex. Penicillin wasn't discovered until 1928).

Mk318 is less destructive than commonly used LE rifle ammunition, as well as many other military weapons such as grenades, mines, mortars, artillery, rockets, bombs, CBU’s, FAE’s, and thermobarics. It is patently ludicrous to conclude that incapacitating dangerous opponents in combat while using a rifle bullet like the Mk318 that is less destructive than some deforming bullets legally relied on daily by LE agencies is somehow inhumane and unlawful, while wounding or killing the same enemy using much more powerful and destructive explosive ordnance is approved and condoned. This is neither logical nor just and in fact does nothing to limit the severity of battlefield casualties.

In many respects, the use of deforming LE type ammunition during modern combat is far more humane, as accurate and effective ammunition reduces the need for multiple shots--decreasing the chance of shots missing the intended opponent and striking innocent civilians. Deforming projectiles also mitigate the potential of innocent bystanders getting hit by bullets which first perforate the target. They may also reduce the number of times a dangerous opponent must be shot, potentially limiting the amount of surgical intervention needed to control hemorrhage.

More than 100 years later, it may be time for Congress, the President, as well as the international community to re-evaluate the outmoded and archaic 1899 Hague Convention's prohibition against routine combat use of the standard deforming ammunition commonly used by LE personnel. The Hague Declaration’s guidelines are no longer relevant for today’s urban battlefield with its close intermixing of innocent civilians and irregular combatants. Perhaps the best option for the international community is to stop trying to regulate projectiles based on their outward appearance, but instead adopt performance based criteria. 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.


This is the kind of thinking that the US needs to adopt rather than deferring to a 110-year old treaty that we didn't sign and which was based on a misunderstanding of terminal ballistics.

Just like cops. soldiers need to have bullets that will stop enemy soldiers without over-penetrating and going on to kill kids a block away. We need AP ammo also--but not for all situations.

And since no country in the world uses total-metal jacket bullets in any case, no one is following the treaty as written.

It is relatively easy to construct the legal arguments necessary to support a change. Now we just need the Pentagon to lean on and educate the State Department. Big Army won't do that, of course, but perhaps the Marines will do so given that their senior officers sometimes show real political courage.

[Chuck Haggard]

From purely a surgical point of view, I would think one would have an easier time cleaning up the wound left by a Barnes X type bullet, which is near dead straight, no fragmentation, and a single wound track, vs something like an early yaw close range M193 hit, which leaves frag going in multiple directions and a bullet that is prone to yaw off course.

At any rate, I think we clearly should avoid firing expanding bullets from balloons. That is right out.

[Failure2Stop]

At any rate, I think we clearly should avoid firing expanding bullets from balloons. That is right out.

/thread.
CH just won the forum for the day.


From Tapatalk:
Jack

[Unobtanium]

First, well designed projectiles do not break apart against automobile windshields, they continue on initial shot line after penetrating tissue, they don't fragment in tissue.

Second, M855A1 is made at Lake City by ATK from a stolen Liberty design. Where was that Liberty load in the video made and with what projectile? Just because it looks similar to M855A1 does not mean it is the same thing.
Mk318 fragments and loses the front half. The rear continues on track. M855a1 loses the steel penetrator. It strikes the target at a divergent while the rear cu slug continues on a straight path. All th the gel shots I've seen, the rounds are similar in performance after glass except m855 a1 causes multiple deep traumas vs one of mk318.

[DocGKR]

Lake City produced M855A1 frequently breaks apart while penetrating a glass intermediate barrier, with more than one piece of projectile hitting the target and the pieces deviating away from the initial shot trajectory. This is not desirable bullet performance and is not blind to barriers.

[Unobtanium]

Lake City produced M855A1 frequently breaks apart while penetrating a glass intermediate barrier, with more than one piece of projectile hitting the target and the pieces deviating away from the initial shot trajectory. This is not desirable bullet performance and is not blind to barriers.

What would it take to install a slightly smaller, slightler harder tip (Tungsten) on top of a bonded lead core with a TBBC profile (thicker-tapering jacket)?

Say, a 20gr Tungsten tip with a 55gr bonded lead slug using the back-half of the TBBC projectile as a model? Thoughts?

[DocGKR]

It could be done, but why?

I'd rather just have the original bonded SOST.

If a penetrator is necessary, it makes much more sense to just use a true AP load like M995 that can actually get through armor.

[Chuck Haggard]

I actually think there is a solid place for an old school, steel core, cheap to make, AP (AP-ish?) rounds like the old 30-06 black tip, in both 5.56 and 7.62. Maybe I'm swayed by stories from my dad of just how useful that -06 was for digging bad guys out from cover like mud walls, trees, etc.
I think in the 7.62 performance would be very similar to the old -06, which wouldn't get through the best plates you can buy nowadays, but would certainly be extremely useful for most other jobs you might want your ammo to do on a battlefield.

Anyway, just thinking out loud as it were. IMHO we screwed up when we reduced everything to basically ball ammo for the rifle/carbine guys and ball/tracer for the belt fed guns.

[DocGKR]

Old school M2 AP type rounds were used to good effect in WWII, but rather than re-issuing such an outmoded design, why not just place M995 and M993 on stripper clips and make them readily available for carbine/rifle users?

[Chuck Haggard]

Old school M2 AP type rounds were used to good effect in WWII, but rather than re-issuing such an outmoded design, why not just place M995 and M993 on stripper clips and make them readily available for carbine/rifle users?

Honest question, what would the cost be of a steel core AP round vs the very best current tungsten core rounds?

I'm thinking that a cheap, easy to build, steel core round would be very useful for guys on the ground even in cases where the bad guys do not commonly have body armor. Lately we are trying to shoot through mud walls, trees and trucks more than we are shooting at people with quality body armor.

I'd think something like the mk318 could substitute a steel core for lead, or even if it was a copy of the M2AP round, obviously that was cheap and easy to build, otherwise we wouldn't have had it so widely available to the average rifleman.

[DocGKR]

The cost of small arms ammo is really quite negligible when compared to other weapons systems--for example the cost of an F35 helmet is enough to purchase around 500,000 rounds of M995. The cost of one F35 aircraft would be enough to pay for M995 being exclusively used as the sole training and combat round for every U.S. service member for the next several decades...

[JDM]

The cost of small arms ammo is really quite negligible when compared to other weapons systems--for example the cost of an F35 helmet is enough to purchase around 500,000 rounds of M995. The cost of one F35 aircraft would be enough to pay for M995 being exclusively used as the sole training and combat round for every U.S. service member for the next several decades...

Wow...

[TR675]

The cost of small arms ammo is really quite negligible when compared to other weapons systems--for example the cost of an F35 helmet is enough to purchase around 500,000 rounds of M995. The cost of one F35 aircraft would be enough to pay for M995 being exclusively used as the sole training and combat round for every U.S. service member for the next several decades...

And I'm willing to bet that M995 actually works, too.

[DocGKR]

M995 works well; M993 works fantastically! I'd love to see a 6.5-7mm AP bullet using this technology--for example a .260 Rem version of M993/M995...


Think of how much M995 & M993 we could have purchased for the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on XM8/XM25/XM29.

[Failure2Stop]

Honest question, what would the cost be of a steel core AP round vs the very best current tungsten core rounds?

I'm thinking that a cheap, easy to build, steel core round would be very useful for guys on the ground even in cases where the bad guys do not commonly have body armor. Lately we are trying to shoot through mud walls, trees and trucks more than we are shooting at people with quality body armor.

I'd think something like the mk318 could substitute a steel core for lead, or even if it was a copy of the M2AP round, obviously that was cheap and easy to build, otherwise we wouldn't have had it so widely available to the average rifleman.

Frankly, when it comes to mud-hut walls frequently encountered in the AFG , nothing shoulder-fired without a shaped-charge payload is going to get through. I'm not saying that there isn't value in a good AP round, simply trying to keep the discussion realistic.

[Lomshek]

The cost of small arms ammo is really quite negligible when compared to other weapons systems--for example the cost of an F35 helmet is enough to purchase around 500,000 rounds of M995. The cost of one F35 aircraft would be enough to pay for M995 being exclusively used as the sole training and combat round for every U.S. service member for the next several decades...

Pretty much the point I make every time someone uses the old "not enough money in the ammo budget" excuse to explain why training to a higher standard of weapons proficiency in the military is too expensive. For the price of an F35 support troops could be given weapons training equivalent to current infantry standards (maybe worth it, maybe not) and combat troops could be trained to a very high level.

[Chuck Haggard]

Frankly, when it comes to mud-hut walls frequently encountered in the AFG , nothing shoulder-fired without a shaped-charge payload is going to get through. I'm not saying that there isn't value in a good AP round, simply trying to keep the discussion realistic.

I get that stuff built in Afghanistan is like a small castle, or even IS a small castle, but we aren't going to be exclusively fighting there forever, something else is going to come up, more likely sooner than later. Was just throwing stuff out there.


Dac, I've said it at least a hundred times, ref carbines programs and big ticket items, we could dump one F35 and likely pay for everyone in the .mil to get a brand new EAG or similar carbine, training, and all the mk318 and AP ammo they could shoot. Carbines and ammo ain't sexy though, and those companies aren't throwing campaign contributions to the right people like the big ticket item builders are.

[Failure2Stop]

I get that stuff built in Afghanistan is like a small castle, or even IS a small castle, but we aren't going to be exclusively fighting there forever, something else is going to come up, more likely sooner than later. Was just throwing stuff out there.


I'm tracking, and I agree.
There are times when AP answers the mail better than other options.

[Jeep]

I get that stuff built in Afghanistan is like a small castle, or even IS a small castle, but we aren't going to be exclusively fighting there forever, something else is going to come up, more likely sooner than later. Was just throwing stuff out there.


Dac, I've said it at least a hundred times, ref carbines programs and big ticket items, we could dump one F35 and likely pay for everyone in the .mil to get a brand new EAG or similar carbine, training, and all the mk318 and AP ammo they could shoot. Carbines and ammo ain't sexy though, and those companies aren't throwing campaign contributions to the right people like the big ticket item builders are.

Let's keep that F35--who knows, it might work someday--and the A-10 as well and buy all those bullets in the bargain. All we need to do is to stop the real sacred cow these days--the "green energy" program that has the Navy buying bio-fuel for some of its jets at over $20 a gallon, and is spending billions to outfit bases with solar power that only works on sunny days, thus requiring other power at nights and on cloudy days. None of it makes economic sense, and all of it was seen as a way of using the DOD budget to fund things Congress wouldn't agree to in the Energy Department budget.

[Odin Bravo One]

Which is precisely why it won't happen.

Support troops do not need that level of training to browse the Haji-Mart, wear reflective belts, and build PPT presentations.

Those who "locate, close with, and destroy" use a combined arms doctrine, with individual small arms in a supporting role to a larger effort, and subordinate to the other tools those units have at their disposal. It has been a long time since the rifle alone made the decisive impact on strategic, or even theater objectives.

[Chuck Haggard]

I'm tracking, and I agree.
There are times when AP answers the mail better than other options.

In Korea my dad used nothing but AP or API when using a Garand, said he didn't remember ever being issued ball ammo, he became a big believer in the ability to shoot through stuff.

[Jeep]

Which is precisely why it won't happen.

Support troops do not need that level of training to browse the Haji-Mart, wear reflective belts, and build PPT presentations.



Jessica Lynch's maintenance company could have used more weapons training, though. They would have been a lot better off if their weapons had worked and they had confidence in their ability to use them. We might never be in that situation again, but if we are the same thing will probably happen.

[Chuck Haggard]

I'm tracking, and I agree.
There are times when AP answers the mail better than other options.

I'm thinking if we go someplace jungle-ish that AP gets through trees and log bunkers way better than ball, as an example.

[Kyle Reese]

Jessica Lynch's maintenance company could have used more weapons training, though. They would have been a lot better off if their weapons had worked and they had confidence in their ability to use them. We might never be in that situation again, but if we are the same thing will probably happen.

Entirely a training and leadership failure.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Chuck Haggard]

Entirely a training and leadership failure.



I'm still at a loss for how one screws up a convoy op that badly.

[TiroFijo]

In Korea my dad used nothing but AP or API when using a Garand, said he didn't remember ever being issued ball ammo, he became a big believer in the ability to shoot through stuff.

I've read that black tip M2 AP was quite usual in WWII as well.

This kind of AP ammo generally penetrates wood/trees just a little bit better than normal FMJ ammo, but it penetrates/destroys brick or concrete walls better, and of course penetrates steel a lot better.

[Chuck Haggard]

I've read that black tip M2 AP was quite usual in WWII as well.

This kind of AP ammo generally penetrates wood/trees just a little bit better than normal FMJ ammo, but it penetrates/destroys brick or concrete walls better, and of course penetrates steel a lot better.

I've been told M2AP goes through those shields that the Russians/Chinese had on their heavy machine guns. I'm also told that if you are shooting at people on the next mountain over that you can, even if you miss with a direct hit, frag the people you are sending hate to due to breaking rocks and sending chunks and ricocheted bullet parts into them.

I can tell you for a fact that it goes through cotton wood and locust trees in the two foot wide range, and will punch through both sides of an M113 and M114, right through the rear crew compartment area, if shot perpendicular to the side of the APC.

I've seen cheap Norinco steel core 7.62x39 go through a single brick wall on an apartment complex and riddle the inside of the apartment, real AP would obviously do even better.

[witchking777]

So,in my opinion a lot of the complaints about poor performing 5.56 ammo in the military would be mitigated if we used M995 as our standard issue round,how does it do in soft tissue since it has a hardened penetrator?

[Chuck Haggard]

So,in my opinion a lot of the complaints about poor performing 5.56 ammo in the military would be mitigated if we used M995 as our standard issue round,how does it do in soft tissue since it has a hardened penetrator?

Not as well as rounds such as mk318, Doc's recommended duty rounds etc, or even M193 or M855 when they frag.

Scroll down to the diagram;
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4329-Military-Wound-Ballistic-History

[witchking777]

Not as well as rounds such as mk318, Doc's recommended duty rounds etc, or even M193 or M855 when they frag.

Scroll down to the diagram;
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4329-Military-Wound-Ballistic-History
So our troops would be best off with a monolithic bullet of heavier grain i.e. 70 gr GMX etc for good overall around performance and maybe keep a few mags of M995 for tougher barriers.

[Chuck Haggard]

So our troops would be best off with a monolithic bullet of heavier grain i.e. 70 gr GMX etc for good overall around performance and maybe keep a few mags of M995 for tougher barriers.

IMHO that is a yes.

[DocGKR]

The bonded SOST/TOTM tested by the USMC in 2006-2007 is better than monolithic copper.

[Drang]

Jessica Lynch's maintenance company could have used more weapons training, though.

Entirely a training and leadership failure.

I'm still at a loss for how one screws up a convoy op that badly.

IIRC, it was a pick up crew, so to speak; bunch of individual contact teams who did not normally serve together. {Edit to add: Not even sure they were all from the same company.}
Probably a lot of complacency involved, too. Digging my senior NCO hat out of the box of other stuff "I don't need this now that I'm retired" support troops, especially, tend to ignore things like weapons maintenance and training if they can get away from it. (I'm not one of those who worships the memory of David Hackworth, but he painted a vivid image of "Specialist Flake.")

[TiroFijo]

The bonded SOST/TOTM tested by the USMC in 2006-2007 is better than monolithic copper.

And a lot cheaper, probably...

But hey! they have this poison metal in it :rolleyes:

[DocGKR]

There is a non-lead version of SOST.

[witchking777]

The bonded SOST/TOTM tested by the USMC in 2006-2007 is better than monolithic copper.

Why is it not being issued en masse then? Why is the Army spending my tax dollars trying to perfect a turd?

[Chuck Haggard]

IIRC, it was a pick up crew, so to speak; bunch of individual contact teams who did not normally serve together. {Edit to add: Not even sure they were all from the same company.}
Probably a lot of complacency involved, too. Digging my senior NCO hat out of the box of other stuff "I don't need this now that I'm retired" support troops, especially, tend to ignore things like weapons maintenance and training if they can get away from it. (I'm not one of those who worships the memory of David Hackworth, but he painted a vivid image of "Specialist Flake.")

Oh, I get how, I really do, but having been a senior NCO and having run convoy ops I can say I also know exactly where the breakdown was, and it's entirely on the leadership. I would hope that every single officer and senior NCO involved in that fiasco was demoted and ETs'd out with a quickness for massive failure in attention to duty.

[Jeep]

Oh, I get how, I really do, but having been a senior NCO and having run convoy ops I can say I also know exactly where the breakdown was, and it's entirely on the leadership. I would hope that every single officer and senior NCO involved in that fiasco was demoted and ETs'd out with a quickness for massive failure in attention to duty.

A long time ago, having not enough to do, I wrote up a report saying that the service support unit convoys in my division paid essentially no attention to tactical requirements and that if we ever got into a conflict in which they were vulnerable we were in big trouble. I also pointed out that a lot of the soldiers in those units would tell you that they had never fired a weapon since basic training (though their official records usually reported them qualifying with their weapons yearly or whatever). The response was "yes" but those are service support units and there is no way that you are going to get them to take tactical requirements seriously short of a war.

My read was that the real problem was not just individual officers and NCOs, but that there was a culture in the service support units that they weren't really in the fighting Army, that combat wasn't their job, and that weapons and things like that were yucky or at least a pain-in-the-neck that they had little interest in.

Had that happened to a combat unit, everyone in the chain up through the battalion commander/CSM would have been relieved. In a service support unit (and I think I read that it was a corps-level add on, not a divisional unit)? They probably blamed a couple of NCO's and maybe the company commander and then promptly went back to business.

[TiroFijo]

There is a non-lead version of SOST.

That's news for me! Is it the same basic design, and if so what metal do they use to fill in the front portion?

Or is it a different design, like monolitic copper?

[Unobtanium]

There is a non-lead version of SOST.

...and it looks very similar to Liberty's 55gr ammunition, with the ogive streamlined a bit due to added weight/length, at least loaded in the case. FWIW. Probably performs identical, too.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIY3sEreStI

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/intvw04.jpg
http://www.ammunitiontogo.com/images/LASC223018.jpg

[ranger]

A long time ago, having not enough to do, I wrote up a report saying that the service support unit convoys in my division paid essentially no attention to tactical requirements and that if we ever got into a conflict in which they were vulnerable we were in big trouble. I also pointed out that a lot of the soldiers in those units would tell you that they had never fired a weapon since basic training (though their official records usually reported them qualifying with their weapons yearly or whatever). The response was "yes" but those are service support units and there is no way that you are going to get them to take tactical requirements seriously short of a war.

My read was that the real problem was not just individual officers and NCOs, but that there was a culture in the service support units that they weren't really in the fighting Army, that combat wasn't their job, and that weapons and things like that were yucky or at least a pain-in-the-neck that they had little interest in.

Had that happened to a combat unit, everyone in the chain up through the battalion commander/CSM would have been relieved. In a service support unit (and I think I read that it was a corps-level add on, not a divisional unit)? They probably blamed a couple of NCO's and maybe the company commander and then promptly went back to business.

Agreed on leadership issue. Agreed on culture issues of service-support. However, we have wished away the issue of "rear area operations" for decades (I know - there is no "rear area" but there is something like it whatever you wish to call it). Best training we had pre-9/11 was NTC rotations in the Mojave Desert - it was very common to find support teams with weapons wrapped up in plastic bags to keep "clean" or stuffed in the back of track/truck hard to reach during that training. Also, BN-BDE-DIV command posts with no security except one soldier at the "gate" of the concertina 5 yards from the CP. 1SGs running around in one HMMWV with one driver going from company to support area to get chow-fuel-ammo LOGPAC. Probably would be worse today as we have been doing COIN from FOBS for so long that most CS and CSS organizations have not done extended field training at the Combat Training Centers like NTC and JRTC - plus the CTC budgets were cut. Ugly truth is we do not have enough combat power to fight and secure the "rear" but if the CS and CSS teams spend the time they should on security then they cannot do the CS and CSS missions they are designed to do. Again, we have been wishing it away for decades.

[Jeep]

Ranger:

My suspicion is we have been wishing it away for ever. I can attest to the period of the early 70's to the mid 80's, and I have a friend who was a finance clerk in Vietnam. The clerks were required to do night perimeter duty (he was in a very rear area but the local VC still occasionally fired a round or three), but their officers and senior NCOs took no part in it. The only officer involved would be the staff duty officer. So naturally, everyone slept in their bunkers.

When you look at Korea and World War II you see the same thing--if the enemy got into our rear areas very little fighting was done. Most of the Americans POWs shot during the Battle of the Bulge by the Waffen SS were rear-area types. They all had at least carbines but most surrendered without firing a shot. Compare that to the numerous times that the Germans threw a bunch of clerks and cooks into the line to stop a break-through and they fought reasonably well.

It's only a guess on my part, but looking at that history one gets the impression that the culture of US service support units as not being warriors go way back and is unlikely to change without direct and sustained attention from the top. I have the impression that the Marines' culture is quite a bit better on this.

[Drang]

Agreed on leadership issue. Agreed on culture issues of service-support. However, we have wished away the issue of "rear area operations" for decades (I know - there is no "rear area" but there is something like it whatever you wish to call it). Best training we had pre-9/11 was NTC rotations in the Mojave Desert - it was very common to find support teams with weapons wrapped up in plastic bags to keep "clean" or stuffed in the back of track/truck hard to reach during that training.
I'm reminded of the Exercise Celtic Cross IV (Ft. Hunter-Liggett and Camp Roberts, CA, in 1986) that was supposed to "prove" the Light Infantry division "concept."
The actual light infantry battalions were performing as designed and intended/expected, but whenever the 101st grunts got into the rear area, the rear area support troops performed as they had for decades -- OPFOR ran through their perimeter shooting and shouting like mad things, and they went back to sleep. This was alleged by some to somehow prove that the Light Division concept was flawed. All it proved was that cooks and fuel pumpers don't take that infantry shit seriously.
(I had one guard up on my site at all times. When you have a 4 man "map-portable" SIGINT team, that's all you can spare.)

Throughout my career there was common belief that "when the balloon goes up" "the command" would somehow find some previously unknown infantry battalions to pull security. Aviators, especially, were convinced that the Divisional Aviation Brigade would have it's own battalion or two of 11Bs to protect them.

Me, I didn't find it too surprising at the 102d MI (which I have learned was deactivated a few years ago) to learn that each of my Direction Finding Teams had an infantry platoon Basic Load of Class V.

[Sixgun_Symphony]

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


...and it looks very similar to Liberty's 55gr ammunition, with the ogive streamlined a bit due to added weight/length, at least loaded in the case. FWIW. Probably performs identical, too.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIY3sEreStI

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/intvw04.jpg
http://www.ammunitiontogo.com/images/LASC223018.jpg

[Jeep]

I'm reminded of the Exercise Celtic Cross IV (Ft. Hunter-Liggett and Camp Roberts, CA, in 1986) that was supposed to "prove" the Light Infantry division "concept."
The actual light infantry battalions were performing as designed and intended/expected, but whenever the 101st grunts got into the rear area, the rear area support troops performed as they had for decades -- OPFOR ran through their perimeter shooting and shouting like mad things, and they went back to sleep. This was alleged by some to somehow prove that the Light Division concept was flawed. All it proved was that cooks and fuel pumpers don't take that infantry shit seriously.
(I had one guard up on my site at all times. When you have a 4 man "map-portable" SIGINT team, that's all you can spare.)

Throughout my career there was common belief that "when the balloon goes up" "the command" would somehow find some previously unknown infantry battalions to pull security. Aviators, especially, were convinced that the Divisional Aviation Brigade would have it's own battalion or two of 11Bs to protect them.

Me, I didn't find it too surprising at the 102d MI (which I have learned was deactivated a few years ago) to learn that each of my Direction Finding Teams had an infantry platoon Basic Load of Class V.

Drang:

Well it could have been worse. Here is a true story from REFORGER 79. The 4th Canadian Mech Brigade was an OPFOR unit. I don't know if you ever worked with them, but back then the Canadians were some of the finest soldiers on the planet, and they took things very, very seriously. One of the friendly units was the Dutch Princess Irene Battalion, which had fought well in WW II, but this was 34 years later.

At 3:00 am the Canadians hit the Dutch lines. The entire battalion was asleep. The Canadians sped through and reached the Dutch trains, where the cooks were preparing breakfast for the soldiers. The Canadians, furious at the Dutch for being asleep, dumped the entire breakfast into the mud, and then kept their penetration going (until the umpires stopped them).

When the Dutch soldiers found out that there would be no breakfast the shop stewards of the three unions caucused (IIRC there was a socialist union, a Trotskyite union, and a hard core Communist union whose major demand was that Holland join the Warsaw pact). They then threw a wildcat strike because they were guaranteed breakfast. It took some considerable while to mollify the union officials to allow the Princess Irene battalion to once again play its part in the war games.

The moral I took from that was that whenever I thought things couldn't get worse (and since this was Jimmy Carter's army, that was often) I realized they could.

[Chuck Haggard]

When I was a 19Delta my entire unit once got an ass chewing because as the OpFor me and another guy figured out where the brigade TOC was and we walked in through the woods in the middle of the night and "assassinated" the entire command staff. Perhaps in retrospect leaving the CS grenade behind as we evac'd on foot, after dumping a couple of mags of M16 blanks and a couple of arty simulators, wasn't the best idea.

[ranger]

I'm reminded of the Exercise Celtic Cross IV (Ft. Hunter-Liggett and Camp Roberts, CA, in 1986) that was supposed to "prove" the Light Infantry division "concept."
The actual light infantry battalions were performing as designed and intended/expected, but whenever the 101st grunts got into the rear area, the rear area support troops performed as they had for decades -- OPFOR ran through their perimeter shooting and shouting like mad things, and they went back to sleep. This was alleged by some to somehow prove that the Light Division concept was flawed. All it proved was that cooks and fuel pumpers don't take that infantry shit seriously.
(I had one guard up on my site at all times. When you have a 4 man "map-portable" SIGINT team, that's all you can spare.)

Throughout my career there was common belief that "when the balloon goes up" "the command" would somehow find some previously unknown infantry battalions to pull security. Aviators, especially, were convinced that the Divisional Aviation Brigade would have it's own battalion or two of 11Bs to protect them.

Me, I didn't find it too surprising at the 102d MI (which I have learned was deactivated a few years ago) to learn that each of my Direction Finding Teams had an infantry platoon Basic Load of Class V.

I was a 11B Manchu in 2-9 IN at FT Ord 1983 to 1986 - got that t shirt. Light Infantry Platoon Leader, Mortar Platoon Leader, and then TOW Platoon Leader - platoon leader time was the best.

[Jeep]

When I was a 19Delta my entire unit once got an ass chewing because as the OpFor me and another guy figured out where the brigade TOC was and we walked in through the woods in the middle of the night and "assassinated" the entire command staff. Perhaps in retrospect leaving the CS grenade behind as we evac'd on foot, after dumping a couple of mags of M16 blanks and a couple of arty simulators, wasn't the best idea.

You see, if you had just opened the canvas screen of the TOC a little, thrown in the CS grenade and then ran--rather than doing the whole arty simulators/assassination bit--they would have been preoccupied with the CS and would never have figured out precisely who did it. Or at least that particular attack worked once (and the guards never did wake up).

[Al T.]

you had just opened the canvas screen of the TOC a little, thrown in the CS grenade and then ran

Watched an M577 burn all the way to the ground - bet that CS grenade alone would have made life, uh, exciting and then Chuck may have been the proud purchaser of his very own 5 ton paperweight! :D

Looks like Ranger and I hung out at Benning around the same time frame - IOAC in 1986.

[Unobtanium]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_epymWduYs

[Andrew Wiggin]

Link for phones (https://youtu.be/9_epymWduYs)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_epymWduYs



M855A1 "green" enhanced performance round fired from 14.5" barrel AR into calibrated 10% gelatin.

BB: 584.2 fps, 3.3"

Impact velocity: 3,013 fps
Penetration: 19.9"
Retained weight: 24.3 gr
Neck: 0.5"
TSC: 3.5" x 7"

The copper slug from the base of the projectile is the part that was recovered at 19.9" and weighed 24.3gr and measured 0.187" across the middle and 0.409" long.

The steel penetrator tip was found lying on the tarp and weighed 18.9 gr and measured 0.168" across the middle and 0.564" long.

The copper jacket fragmented completely.

[Sigfan26]

M855A1 came out in 2010. When was MK318 out?

Head stamp on my civilian stuff is 2010... Guessing the .Mil had it long before that.

[DocGKR]

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. Acceptable 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

Does M855A1 meet these guidelines?

What about the myriad of other issues with this load?

[Chuck Haggard]

Looks like other folks are also looking for a better bullet;

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014armaments/Wed16542Fredrick.pdf

[DocGKR]

Too bad they are going down the wrong design pathway...

[Chuck Haggard]

Too bad they are going down the wrong design pathway...

Yeah, well, there is that.

That steel core or tungsten/steel core bullet does look like a pretty decent GP bullet for a belt fed gun though, I'd guess better than M855/SS109 for shooting through "stuff", although in doing some reading I see they are desperate to do the "lead free" thing and had the law of unintended consequences bite them in the ass.

[witchking777]

Yeah, well, there is that.

That steel core or tungsten/steel care bullet does look like a pretty decent GP bullet for a belt fed gun though, I'd guess better than M855/SS109 for shooting through "stuff", although in doing some reading I see they are desperate to do the "lead free" thing and had the law of unintended consequences bite them in the ass.

But,but,but,we need to be a "green" military and care about "climate change"! Forget threats like ISIS and the cartels!

[DocGKR]

Someone please show me a single valid study documenting that jacketed bullets with a lead core pose a health issue to humans once those bullets have come to rest in dirt.

[Unobtanium]

Someone please show me a single valid study documenting that jacketed bullets with a lead core pose a health issue to humans once those bullets have come to rest in dirt.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5423a1.htm

The last two words of your sentence provide you the loop-hole, but yes, lead can be an issue with indoor ranges, and some training does occur indoors, especially for police departments. I have shot at indoor ranges that certainly did NOT meet the protocol of "Range B" in that study.

Point being, lead in ammo *CAN* be an issue. However, common sense will go further than money, when thrown at a "problem" like this...

That said, what's wrong with TSX/GMX and other monolithic copper/gilding metal/brass alloy designs? I have the opinion that they are typically more lethal than their lead-core counterparts to boot.

[DocGKR]

Disingenuous.

The aerosolized lead from conventional primers in poorly operated indoor firing ranges with shooters firing unjacketed lead bullets and bullets with exposed lead bases is a huge issue.

But it has NOTHING to do with reverse jacketed military bullets fired on outdoor ranges into lead berms.

Lethality is a poor measure of bullet "success" and is not a useful term.

[Sixgun_Symphony]

What about the myriad of other issues with this load?[/I]

Its almost like you haven't already laid out simply the best and most descriptive argument against the EPR several times in this thread alone. Discouraging really


The bonded SOST/TOTM tested by the USMC in 2006-2007 is better than monolithic copper.

Why?

[DocGKR]

Monolithic copper tends to strip off portions of the projectile when impacting intermediate barriers, leaving a caliber size wadcutter projectile; bonded bullets tend to stay together and not lose mass.

[Sixgun_Symphony]

Monolithic copper tends to strip off portions of the projectile when impacting intermediate barriers, leaving a caliber size wadcutter projectile; bonded bullets tend to stay together and not loose mass.

I should have known that's what you were referring.. I known that for while since reading stuff you've posted for years.. thanks again

[Unobtanium]

Monolithic copper tends to strip off portions of the projectile when impacting intermediate barriers, leaving a caliber size wadcutter projectile; bonded bullets tend to stay together and not lose mass.

This is not what your previous ballistic tests on windshields have demonstrated.

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/DocGKRData/223%20Winchester64grBonded.htm

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/DocGKRData/223%20TBBC.htm

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/DocGKRData/223%20Barrier%20Rounds.htm

Of note, the monolithic copper projectile retained the highest percentage of its weight, and an actual amount of weight higher than either, and expanded to a diameter between that of RA556B and XM556FBIT3, while also out-penetrating both of them, after the auto-glass. Both of which bonded rounds you place at the top of the food chain in barrier-blind performance.

Have I misinterpreted your data? Why then would you say that the monolithic copper bullet did not perform better? Expansion within the realm of normal for the top two loads, better penetration, more weight retention both as a percentage and as a total weight figure. Also of note, the bonded bullets both lost around 40% of their total mass, while the copper bullet lost well under half of that, starting out 12, and 14 grains lighter, respectively, and ending up heavier, when it was all said and done.

[DocGKR]

The all copper bullets behave much less consistently after first hitting intermediate barriers, often demonstrating reduced surface area and a resulting tendency to overpenetrate--this is fine for a hunting or military situation, but not ideal for LE or self-defense.

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/BarnesXbullets_recov.jpg

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/556TSXglass.jpg

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/68vBLKexpanding_zps2bc6082d.jpg

[Unobtanium]

The all copper bullets behave much less consistently after first hitting intermediate barriers, often demonstrating reduced surface area and a resulting tendency to overpenetrate--this is fine for a hunting or military situation, but not ideal for LE or self-defense.

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/BarnesXbullets_recov.jpg

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/556TSXglass.jpg

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/68vBLKexpanding_zps2bc6082d.jpg

Have you noted the GMX performing better than the softer Barnes?

[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/articles/2014/5/21/testing-the-army-s-m855a1-standard-ball-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.php?14621-gov-loses-lawsuit-ref-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.php?14621-gov-loses-lawsuit-ref-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 www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/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.. .

[Beat Trash]

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

I totally agree, but one should not try to apply logic where logic is not welcome...

[Jeep]

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

Keep speaking out. Sometime educated internet debate really does reach people who can change things. That +P point is probably an unintended consequence of trying to make an effective "green" bullet. Congress is going to be furious when it discovers that the new ammo not only costs a mint but is wearing down our weapons, thus pushing true costs far higher.

As a practical matter, no one in DC can speak out against "green"--even if the lead bullet problem doesn't really exist--but they will care about increased costs that might reach the hundreds of millions.

[Chuck Haggard]

One of my reps is not the normal politician, she is a CPA instead of being a lawyer, I'm thinking about sending her office some information, she's all about the finances/numbers.

[Jeep]

That is a very good idea. No downside and maybe it will help something happen. Let her know about your experience in the Army/police, your other expertise and your concern as a taxpayer.

Unfortunately, I live in blue America, where the cry of "green" stops all political brains from functioning out of concern if they aren't green enough someone further left than they will launch a primary against them. Effective bullets and weapons are of no concern because the military is basically yucky anyway.

[Unobtanium]

I belive pressure has already been eased down to 59k.

[Wondering Beard]

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


What is it about machine guns that makes the M855 better than when shot from carbines or rifles?

[Sixgun_Symphony]

What is it about machine guns that makes the M855 better than when shot from carbines or rifles?

Longer barrel and intended role...

[Wondering Beard]

Could you add more detail to your response?

I'm not military so I'm genuinely curious.

[Chuck Haggard]

What is it about machine guns that makes the M855 better than when shot from carbines or rifles?

The M855 was built specifically for that role, and to penetrate Soviet troop worn gear, helmets and non-hard plate body armor at extended distances, and many of the issues we see when one uses it for a carbine round, especially for guys stuck using it in a CQB role, aren't an issue when using it from a belt fed gun.

Examples would be accuracy not being to par for what a guy using a carbine or rifle would want, when you have a beaten zone downrange with tracers thrown in, instead of a group, MOA accuracy is not an issue.

Fleet yaw/wound ballistics issues are also much less of a problem at close range since you can fill a bad guy in pretty quick with a belt fed gun.

Why M855 in my comment? It's cheap, it's NATO spec, we are already building it, it's a known quantity, and it runs from our 5.56 belt fed guns without beating them to death.

[Wondering Beard]

Thanks Chuck, that makes sense :-)

[DocGKR]

Page 6: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

[Wondering Beard]

Thanks doc.

It sounds like right now the SOST round is the better choice, even maybe for the GP carbine discussed in the other thread.

[DocGKR]

A bonded SOST round (TOTM--see p.12 in the link above) is by far the optimal solution in any rifle caliber.

[ranger]

Every time I see that presentation - I wonder why 6.8 was abandoned. I saw something about poor performance in initial DOD tests but hasn't those issued been addressed. I built a 16 inch and a 1.5 inch AR top ends based on that presentation and I have been pleased with their performance on the range (I have no "real world" experience with 6.8).

[Jeep]

Every time I see that presentation - I wonder why 6.8 was abandoned. I saw something about poor performance in initial DOD tests but hasn't those issued been addressed. I built a 16 inch and a 1.5 inch AR top ends based on that presentation and I have been pleased with their performance on the range (I have no "real world" experience with 6.8).

Not invented here, maybe? If the JSOC units had migrated to 6.8, my guess is that it might have become the round of choice for most of the special operations forces and perhaps spread to big Army. But the JSOC units didn't go there. Maybe someone here knows more about that.

[joshs]

It looks like there will be a required report on enhanced 5.56 rounds. This is from the NDAA that has already passed the House:

(a) Report.—Not later than March 1, 2016, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the use in combat of two different types of enhanced 5.56 mm ammunition by the Army and the Marine Corps.

(b) Elements.—The report under subsection (a) shall include the following:

(1) An explanation of the reasons for the Army and the Marine Corps to use in combat two different types of enhanced 5.56 mm ammunition.

(2) An explanation of the appropriateness, effectiveness, and suitability issues that may arise from the use of such different types of ammunition.

(3) An explanation of any additional costs that have resulted from the use of such different types of ammunition.

(4) An explanation of any future plans of the Army or the Marine Corps to eventually transition to using in combat one standard type of enhanced 5.56 mm ammunition.

(5) If there are no plans described in paragraph (4), an analysis of the potential benefits of a transition described in such paragraph, including the timeline for such a transition to occur.

(6) Any other matters the Secretary determines appropriate.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2