.gov loses lawsuit ref M855a1 bullet

[Paul]

The importance of 600m terminal performance is directly related to how big of a shit sandwich you're eating. Some yahoo taking shots from a canal across a field with a busted up old Enfield, is one thing. When you're on patrol in a valley and someone starts laying into your ass with a DShK at 600m from a reverse slope on a day with low cloud cover, is a whole other problem.

I just hope at the end of the days the boys and girls on the pointy end of the spear are getting the tools that will best help them. At a macro level, having to wait 30 minutes for close air support is acceptable. When you're that poor bastard fighting for his life that's a really really really really long time.

[Dave J]

Picatinny loves to hype their own programs. I take their M855A1 propaganda with a very large grain of salt. While I don't doubt it's an improvement over M855, making the tree-huggers happy seems to have been at least as much of a priority as obtaining the best performing round.

Magnified optics like the ACOG, are as much about being able to locate the enemy, and PID threat vs. non-threat, as anything. But, if you want to justify spending money on a purchase, "increased effective range" is a wonderful talking point.

[HCM]

making the tree-huggers happy seems to have been at least as much of a priority than obtaining the best performing round.

Serious question, - I'm sure the "green bullet" thing is a big factor but with the recent closure of the last lead smelter in CONUS, is there any strategic benefit to leadless small arms ammo or am I over thinking this ?

[joshs]

Serious question, - I'm sure the "green bullet" thing is a big factor but with the recent closure of the last lead smelter in CONUS, is there any strategic benefit to leadless small arms ammo or am I over thinking this ?

I doubt it, we still have secondary lead smelters, and almost all the lead used in ammunition comes from secondary sources. The smelter that closed was the last one that could smelt primary lead.

[Chuck Haggard]

The importance of 600m terminal performance is directly related to how big of a shit sandwich you're eating. Some yahoo taking shots from a canal across a field with a busted up old Enfield, is one thing. When you're on patrol in a valley and someone starts laying into your ass with a DShK at 600m from a reverse slope on a day with low cloud cover, is a whole other problem.

I just hope at the end of the days the boys and girls on the pointy end of the spear are getting the tools that will best help them. At a macro level, having to wait 30 minutes for close air support is acceptable. When you're that poor bastard fighting for his life that's a really really really really long time.

Totally get that.

I'd respectfully submit that at 600 meters all of the above are still just going to poke holes in bad guys. It's a 5.56 round at 600 meters. The best one can hope for is early yaw on impact with meat.

[Paul]

Totally get that.

I'd respectfully submit that at 600 meters all of the above are still just going to poke holes in bad guys. It's a 5.56 round at 600 meters. The best one can hope for is early yaw on impact with meat.

I have no idea about which works better or is a better part of a total weapon system. It's easy for the big Army and Marine Corps to forget that there are men and women on the ground and not just numbers on a piece of paper. It's easy to forget that that they're real people and at the end of the day when the chips are down all they have in this world are on are the men and women standing next to them and the weapons in their hands. Despite monumental leaps in technology the grim realities of war haven't changed. (I know it's an old cliche of burnt out old have beens)

One thing that I've read about the M855A1, and I don't know how true it is, is that it's loaded to a 5.5 moa standard, and that the Mk318 is loaded to a 2 moa standard. That starts becoming a big deal at longer ranges when it comes to scoring hits and when it comes to densities of suppressive and/or massed fire. A 10 moa shooter with with 5.5 moa will have a cone of fire that is 1/3 less dense than with 2 moa ammo. That could be the difference between effective suppressive fire and making noise or using half the ammo to achieve the same effect.

And I get that getting wrapped up around the axle about long range needs, can leave guys with rifles that less than ideal for fighting out of vehicles or at bad breath distances. I don't what the right answer is, it just irks me when it seems like politics are coming into play on issues like this.

[ranger]

There are relatively few Soldiers and Marines at the point of the spear engaging our enemies in ground combat at any one time. We as a nation can easily afford to give those front line Soldiers and Marines the best possible weapon systems (firearm-optics-ammo-accessories). It just is not a priority for DOD. A dedicated concentrated letter/email/call campaign to our elected leaders would make a difference. There is more concern about air pressure in a football than properly equipping our Soldiers and Marines.

[Unobtanium]

I have no idea about which works better or is a better part of a total weapon system. It's easy for the big Army and Marine Corps to forget that there are men and women on the ground and not just numbers on a piece of paper. It's easy to forget that that they're real people and at the end of the day when the chips are down all they have in this world are on are the men and women standing next to them and the weapons in their hands. Despite monumental leaps in technology the grim realities of war haven't changed. (I know it's an old cliche of burnt out old have beens)

One thing that I've read about the M855A1, and I don't know how true it is, is that it's loaded to a 5.5 moa standard, and that the Mk318 is loaded to a 2 moa standard. That starts becoming a big deal at longer ranges when it comes to scoring hits and when it comes to densities of suppressive and/or massed fire. A 10 moa shooter with with 5.5 moa will have a cone of fire that is 1/3 less dense than with 2 moa ammo. That could be the difference between effective suppressive fire and making noise or using half the ammo to achieve the same effect.

And I get that getting wrapped up around the axle about long range needs, can leave guys with rifles that less than ideal for fighting out of vehicles or at bad breath distances. I don't what the right answer is, it just irks me when it seems like politics are coming into play on issues like this.

I'd take that with a grain of salt. The M4 carbine is built as a 4.5 MOA weapon. From what I understand, the M855A1 handed out at Camp Perry shot just fine, and I have yet to hear ANYONE complain about accuracy. That is part of the "Anti M855A1 movement", as I call it. For whatever reason, there are 2 sides to this story and both are huge. I'd just like to know why, really. Those who have been issued and use M855A1 love it. Testing people/agencies hate it. I don't really know what to think, but I stocked up on MK318 instead because I trust Dr. Roberts, and noone has said too much negative about MK318. I'd just like to know why there are 2 sides to the M855A1 story, really. Some say catestrophic wear, some say 10% more. Some complain about accuracy, noone has ever proven it poor. It is said to perform at 600m, Dr. Roberts says it doesn't. It's confusing.

[littlejerry]

I'd take that with a grain of salt. The M4 carbine is built as a 4.5 MOA weapon. From what I understand, the M855A1 handed out at Camp Perry shot just fine, and I have yet to hear ANYONE complain about accuracy. That is part of the "Anti M855A1 movement", as I call it. For whatever reason, there are 2 sides to this story and both are huge. I'd just like to know why, really. Those who have been issued and use M855A1 love it. Testing people/agencies hate it. I don't really know what to think, but I stocked up on MK318 instead because I trust Dr. Roberts, and noone has said too much negative about MK318. I'd just like to know why there are 2 sides to the M855A1 story, really. Some say catestrophic wear, some say 10% more. Some complain about accuracy, noone has ever proven it poor. It is said to perform at 600m, Dr. Roberts says it doesn't. It's confusing.

It would be helpful if you would add more detail to some of your assertions, as they seem a bit vague, especially given that you have said outright you have no affiliation with the military.

Mk318 is being dropped by USMC because it was just a stopgap - where did you hear this and is it a reputable authoritative source?

" It is said to perform at 600m". Who said this and how do you define perform?

Who loves M855A1? Who reported good accuracy and under what circumstances?

I don't mean to be rude but you've made some fairly significant claims without any real background info. I'd love to hear more details about what you know and where it comes from.

[DocGKR]

"It is said to perform at 600m, Dr. Roberts says it doesn't."

Ah...that is NOT what I stated. Details are important.

I clearly wrote that: "At 600m, the wound tracks of M193, M855, M855A1, Mk262, Mk318 all look virtually identical..."

M855A1 might perform "well" at 600m depending on what metric is actually being measured--for example penetration of a helmet. My comment is specifically addressing projectile induced damage to unobstructed soft tissue at the distance mentioned.

Your comment regarding USMC ammo acquisition is not accurate at this time.

All independent testing of M4, M16, and M27 weapon systems firing M855A1 demonstrate a pattern of accelerated wear much higher than the 10% you mentioned when compared against those same systems firing M193, M855, Mk262, or Mk318.

It is interesting that those units that have the option of using any ammo that is available via the broad military supply system tend to NOT choose M855A1...