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/.
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/.
Interesting read. I was a little shocked to read the 5.5 MOA bit.
Nobody is impressed by what you can't do. -THJ
Definitely.Originally Posted by BOM
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.....
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
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.
The contract specifically allows a 5.5 MOA accuracy acceptance, so why would the lot be rejected?
Wishful thinking on my part.
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?
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...
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.
Reply With Quote