M855A1 SBR gel test

[Andrew Wiggin]

https://youtu.be/clZwnSQnfH8

The Army's new M855A1 62 gr EPR fired from 11.5" AR into calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin.

If anyone knows the BC for this projectile, please post so we can correlate this to approximate down range performance for longer barrels.

[Jeep]

Andrew: Another nice test--it looks like a pretty effective bullet (which it should be considering how much in damages the Army is going to have to pay for stealing it!)

[Andrew Wiggin]

Lol, right. Here's hoping that Liberty either starts producing out for the civilian market or licenses another company to do same.

[rauchman]

Cool stuff. I understand these rounds are known for being "hot". Did you happen to notice higher recoil than a standard M855 round?

Thanks for the vid's.

[Andrew Wiggin]

No noticeable difference in recoil. The original run was supposedly very hot. More recent production has been loaded to more reasonable levels.

[Drang]

If anyone knows the BC for this projectile, please post so we can correlate this to approximate down range performance for longer barrels.

Hmmm:
Improved Performance M855A1 Ammunition

Due to the elimination of lead from the projectile, and its subsequent replacement with less-dense copper and steel, the new M855A1 projectile has an increased ballistic coefficient – although ARDEC doesn’t specify what that is.

Interestingly, when I started typing "ballistic coefficient m..." into the search engine it offered me "ballistic coefficient M193 M855 M2..."

Anyway, according to ShootersCalculator.com | Ballistic Trajectory Calculator the M885A1 round has a BC of .371. I make no claim to know where they got that, or if it's accurate.

[Andrew Wiggin]

great post. Thanks for doing the research.

[Unobtanium]

As more and more information comes to light on M855A1, it is looking more and more like a VERY GOOD round. I have literally NEVER heard anyone who has used it say otherwise. Everyone I know who kills people for a living, and has used it, has given it glowing reports. Through cars. Through people. It just seems to WORK. The initial issues all seem to have been worked out, and it is only wearing guns out faster by the small amount that the pressure was bumped over M855, which, as many will recall, was a bump over M193, and resulted in similar wear. I am curious why there was so much opposition to M855A1 from so vocal an aspect of the community. I understand it had fleas when it began, but as they have been worked out, that contingent has fallen silent, amid reports of how bloody effective it is. I just find the political maneuvering...odd. I am glad that our troops have better tools!

[Sixgun_Symphony]

No noticeable difference in recoil. The original run was supposedly very hot. More recent production has been loaded to more reasonable levels.

I shot some of the 2011 stuff while deployed to Afghanistan and it was noticeably harsher in recoil from an M4.

As more and more information comes to light on M855A1, it is looking more and more like a VERY GOOD round. I have literally NEVER heard anyone who has used it say otherwise. Everyone I know who kills people for a living, and has used it, has given it glowing reports. Through cars. Through people. It just seems to WORK. The initial issues all seem to have been worked out, and it is only wearing guns out faster by the small amount that the pressure was bumped over M855, which, as many will recall, was a bump over M193, and resulted in similar wear. I am curious why there was so much opposition to M855A1 from so vocal an aspect of the community. I understand it had fleas when it began, but as they have been worked out, that contingent has fallen silent, amid reports of how bloody effective it is. I just find the political maneuvering...odd. I am glad that our troops have better tools!

I'll keep this short and somewhat coherent. Pros and cons with the M855A1 (early lots) in my experience. IMO it con'd more than it pro'd. Good accuracy, and it definitely put bad guys down harder than the green tip and I got to see a few of these from both projectiles. But we definitely had some serious increase in wear on the M4's and at least one broken bolt (as much as I'd like to completely blame it on the EPR, it was likely only aggravated to that point). Thru cars doors and glass...I was HIGHLY unimpressed, it did tear up wood structures/defenses nicely.

M855A1 in the M249, we noticed a pretty significant increased wear & tear on parts, a slight increase in the rate of malfunctions. Our PLT continued to use a mix of M855, M995 depending on mission needs. Despite the increased terminal effectiveness and "barrier" penetration capabilities of M855A1. Reliability of the SAW was the number one requirement. I wouldnt call it a glowing report whatsoever. It was ok...

[Wayne Dobbs]

This load is tearing up guns. The average chamber pressure is ~65K PSI and is causing much faster bolt and barrel wear in TDP compliant M4s. It's completely UNSAFE in guns without NATO chambers, such as Bushmasters, DPMS, etc. And no, Muffy, you can't trust the barrel rollmark about what chamber you have. On these guns, there have already been catastrophic failures. The steel nose cone is eroding the receiver feed ramps and projecting said aluminum shavings into chambers and bores. All bad stuff. The most vexing thing about this thread is where did you legally obtain any of this ammo, since it is not available in commercial channels??