http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ardize-rounds/
Will they choose M855A1 or Mk318 or ???
Wil the other round remain an alternative (in limited use, like Mk 262 Mod 1), or will be dropped completely?
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ardize-rounds/
Will they choose M855A1 or Mk318 or ???
Wil the other round remain an alternative (in limited use, like Mk 262 Mod 1), or will be dropped completely?
They will get the M855A1 because that’s what the Army wants and they are more bigger.
Last edited by 5pins; 12-07-2016 at 11:18 AM.
Most likely the case unless someone can show that mk318 is a more effective round. Actually, I take that back. No one is going to give a crap about functionality. It will come down to cost.Originally Posted by 5pins
Mk262 will stick around as it's a special purpose round, for the most part. I can't see either branch forcing DMR/SDM types to use either 318 or 855A1.
Can "barrier" Mk318 survive as a special purpose round?
We already have the new style magazines in inventory to support the use of M855A1 in our weapons in the warehouses and armories here at Lejuene, they just have not been disseminated out for individual issue at the unit level yet. Personally, I'm taking that as a pretty big clue that we are going to end up with M855A1 at some point in the future, The Brown follower "Brownell's" magazines have not been ordered for a while now, and supposedly these new brown bodied with a blue follower magazines are needed to fix some sort of feed ramp issue with the M855A1 and our M4 carbines. We still have a pretty good supply of M855 here in the ASP for training purposes..... but supposedly in order to keep units at the training level specified by the Training and Readiness manual we have been burning up war stocks now for a few years.
I'd expect MK-318 will remain in production as long as SOCOM wants it. Congress is much less likely to get involved in SOF-peculiar ammo selection, than they are to ask the obvious question as to why the Army and USMC can't agree on a general purpose round, IMHO.
One would have thought this would have been done years ago.
About time. Both deliver the mail just fine.
Unless you shoot at steel targets and have a safety of use message related to face deformation and bouncing penetrators.
Or shoot inside shoothouses and don't want to replace your walls every 2 years.
That said, my prediction is that if the USMC can't stave off the uninformed opinion of the current regime, that A1 will be forced into adoption.
A lot of the early issues with A1 has been solved, so the complaints about it are pretty much relegated to training and support.
Last edited by Failure2Stop; 12-08-2016 at 09:10 AM.
Director Of Sales
Knight's Armament Company
Personal opinion:
Obviously the Marines don't want anything to do with the Army, but the request makes sense. Even more sense would be asking about the whole initiative.
Just how much does the new lead-free, steel-core copper bullet being specified cost? How reliable is the new lead-free primer? If they aren't using lead-free primers, why the hell are they worrying about lead-free bullets?
In case of a major war, could production this boutique bullet meet the needs of the troops vs mass-produced swaged bullets, or would NEW production of standard bullets be required to keep ammo in the troop's hands?
As a tax-payer, if the new bullet costs even 1 cent more per bullet than a jacketed lead-core with steel penetrator, I would tell them where to shove their "lead-free" agenda and get back to buying ammunition at a reasonable cost.
Unless they show the TACTICAL superiority of the new bullet over any possible lead core bullet, they are WASTING taxpayer money.
I like the fact that the Army thinks nothing of using depleted uranium for lots of different uses, but is cracking down on lead. You want to live in a lead house or a uranium house?
Reply With Quote