Not much of a surprise here...
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...-marine-corps/
Are the early M855A1 "issues" still present, or are they solved/ameliorated?
Not much of a surprise here...
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...-marine-corps/
Are the early M855A1 "issues" still present, or are they solved/ameliorated?
Rifles that are close to wallered out tend to get pushed over the edge by M855A1 - it will accelerate gas ring failures. I also saw a few case/head separations with older M4's too, likely already on the verge of failing with M855 due to gas port erosion.Originally Posted by TiroFijo
I personally noticed groups opening up with early M855A1 over the old M855 too - lots of older rifles shooting 4-6 MOA.
The M27 issues the Marines were having were of great interest to me, but friends of mine in line units that do a lot of range time tell me they haven't seen any accelerated barrel or throat wear on otherwise serviceable weapons.
The past two ranges I've done with more recent batches of M855A1 have tighter groups than the early stuff. By which I mean 2.5-3.5 MOA @ 100M is common from a typical duty-issued M4 or M16.
The weapons that had failures with early M855A1 were close to failing already, IMHO, so the accelerated wear is something of a non-issue - it just forces unit armorers to actually get things fixed instead of slathering it with more CLP and changing the magazine and calling it good, which happens WAY too often.
Some fixed, some not. Weapon service life is still shorter w/M855A1..."Are the early M855A1 "issues" still present, or are they solved/ameliorated?"
Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie
Did they back down the chamber/port pressure a little? I never saw the point of going almost +P to gain just a little velocity, since the BC is already higher than M855.
This was a pure political decision, as ALL of the voluminous research collected by MARCORSYSCOM and other non-Big Army test entities unequivocally showed that M855A1 was NOT barrier blind and did accelerate wear on systems, for example the M27 has its service life reduced by 33% or so when firing M855A1 vs. M855, Mk262, Mk318, etc...
Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie
Might it be cost? The services are still starved for money, and if the Marines can join in an Army contract to get 855A1 cheaper than alternative ammo, maybe it makes sense to buy this now while knowing full well that it will required increased rifle/carbine purchases in a few years.
Congress, after all, can't send Marines off to war without rifles/carbines so it might be an easier way to get money out of Congress than it would be asking for more money for the ammo budget.
Of course, to the extent such beltway logic makes sense, it would only do so if the cost per round is less, and I have no idea about that.
Some users told me it works better a couple years ago. Non scientific of course.
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
I am curious if the M855A1 with be the "war" ammo and if the services will use up their stocks of M855 for qualification and training (and thereby reduce the wear and tear of M855A1 on the service weapons).
It's been the Army's war ammo for some time. See post #8. https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....1-SBR-gel-test
I've heard similiar in general. I don't know what the standard is to be "barrier blind" however.
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
I was asking if the services are using M855A1 as the training ammo or M855. I understand that M855A1 is the "war shots".
Reply With Quote