What ever happened to the search for a round that could reach out and touch someone with authority at longer ranges like we are seeing in A-stan. It seems to me that at 5+ MOA would negate that rounds effestiveness at longer ranges.
What ever happened to the search for a round that could reach out and touch someone with authority at longer ranges like we are seeing in A-stan. It seems to me that at 5+ MOA would negate that rounds effestiveness at longer ranges.
Scott
Only Hits Count - The Faster the Hit the more it Counts!!!!!!; DELIVER THE SHOT!
Stephen Hillier - "An amateur practices until he can do it right, a professional practices until he can't do it wrong."
Joseph Bell--M855 is one of the WORST loads available for punching through automobile windshields--it tends to come apart and have insufficient penetration, as illustrated on page 15 here: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf.
rsa-otc--Current M855 "greentip" has been shooting as bad as 6 MOA since 9/11...why do you think so many military shooters have gone to other loads, like Mk262, for any shots requiring precision? See page 6 here: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf.
The article author is not a random internet wannabe or pseudo-expert; he is a decorated, combat experienced military veteran, as well as one of the most respected LE officers on the west coast. Over the years I have shared data with his VERY large and influential agency regarding wound ballistics, post OIS incident forensics, LE ammunition selection, firearms testing issues, and body armor test protocols.
The Army's "green" bullet program has been a BIG failure that has cost the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars. Aerosolized lead from primers and exposed lead on bullet bases is indeed a problem. Of course the solution is to use lead free primers and reverse jacket projectiles without exposed lead bases. I have yet to see a good study showing that lead in berms percolates through the soil into the water table. If launched using lead free primers, how exactly are lead core, reverse jacketed projectiles supposedly causing lead toxicity to shooters? So why is the Army insisting on lead free projectiles? As described previously, the Army's first very expensive attempt at environmentally friendly lead-free "green" ammo, the tungsten-nylon core "green" M855 ammunition was poorly conceived, badly implemented, did not work, and has turned out to be highly toxic, as discovered at Camp Edwards.
The bismuth-tin core M855 LFS did NOT work as advertised and was another giant costly FAILURE. Lots of experienced engineers and scientists identified problems with the bismuth–tin core LFS projectile, but the Big Army chose to ignore all this advice.
M855A1 is a good general purpose load for MG's, but NOT the optimal choice for carbines/rifles. It doesn't help that the recent Big Army briefings on the topic are filled with misleading statements and outright falsehoods.
M855A1 is definitely more accurate than recent M855, about par with Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip”, while less accurate than Mk262. Current M855A1 is shooting about 2 MOA––however these are projectiles built on the old inefficient, more costly BAM, since to date, M855A1 has not successfully been run on the SCAMP line. IF M855A1 is ever able to be successfully built on SCAMP, then who knows where accuracy will be. Unfortunately, since the contract allows 5.5 MOA, eventually lots will be accepted with reduced accuracy, exactly as occurred with M855 “greentip” and M118LR produced following the post 9/11 ramp up in ammo production and concomitant need to relax accuracy requirements to reduce the number of rejected lots…
From a general soft tissue terminal performance perspective, M855A1 is better and more consistent than M855 and Mk262, offering similar terminal performance to Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip”. M855A1 is definitely not barrier blind when punching through automobile windshields—both Mk318 and “browntip” are better at barriers like automobile windshields. M855A1 does penetrate steel and cinder block better than M855. M855A1 can defeat compressed LIII polyethelene hard armor plates just like current M855. Neither M855, M855A1, Mk318, nor “browntip” can penetrate current eSAPI armor If we go into combat against a true peer competitor nation who issues equivalent hard armor, M855A1 is not going to be any more effective than current M855; all our troops are going to need to be issued mass quantities of M995 if they want to have any hope of penetrating the personal armor of the opposition in such a scenario.
There have been a few glowing reports coming out of Army units describing great battlefield M855A1 terminal performance when it was latter learned that the Soldiers in question had actually been shooting Mk318 SOST—interestingly the Army has not bothered to correct this misinformation.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me… Having been twice duped by the Big Army’s meretricious claims of M855 “green” and M855 LFS, the Marine Corps decided to finally exercise due diligence and conduct their own study on the merits of M855A1 vs. Mk318—this outstanding comprehensive study was fully funded and controlled by the USMC. Yet the Army has done EVERYTHING possible to try to control, inhibit, limit, and restrict distribution of the Marine Corps findings—just look at COL Hall’s asinine behavior this week trying to prevent the Marines from releasing data to other DOD and allied end-users.
The Army does NOT want the truth revealed about several areas of M855A1:
–– The true per cartridge cost of M855A1, as well as the full cost of the Army “green” ammo program.
–– How the Army misappropriated the patent protected M855A1 design from an outside vendor and what that act of malfeasance has cost taxpayers.
–– That M855A1 has so far only successfully been manufactured on the old inefficient, costly BAM and not on the SCAMP line.
–– How the increased chamber pressure of M855A1 contributes to premature bolt and other part failures, including decreased barrel life/increased port erosion, as well as issues with damaged flash hiders.
–– There is increased fouling from the dirty propellant used with M855A1.
–– That the M855A1 accuracy standard is over twice as large as the Mk318 contract requirement.
–– The different trajectory of M855A1 compared to M855 and M856.
–– That M855A1 is NOT blind to common barriers.
Note that M855A1 is an ATK/Lake City design, while Mk318 Mod0 is an ATK/Federal Cartridge design—either way ATK will be making a profit.
The M855A1 program is a damning indictment of the utter FAILURE of the Army procurement system to rapidly and effectively respond to the needs of our Nation’s troops—especially in time of war. Why has it taken over a decade and hundreds of millions of tax payer funds to develop what is essentially a product improved 1960’s era Bronze Tip bullet? How come M855A1 costs twice as much as Mk318 and is also more expensive than the COTS Mk262 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip”? Why does the Army need a lead free combat round? If one is truly needed, then the already approved, safety certified, in service COTS 70 gr Optimal "browntip" seems to be a more viable solution for carbines and rifles than the problematic M855A1.
While M855A1 does have better accuracy, more consistent terminal performance, and better barrier capability than M855 "green tip", in a military setting I would currently prefer Mk318 Mod0 or 70 gr "brown tip" for carbine use over M855A1. LE agencies and civilians have even better choices.
Last edited by DocGKR; 03-10-2012 at 06:38 PM.
Gary Roberts 2012!
That is an interesting report. My personal experience has been pretty good with M855 and vehicle glass, as well as punching through the sheet metal, etc.Originally Posted by DocGKR
I am not really qualified to comment on worst or best, but I do believe in what I have seen, done, etc. As I said before I am willing and planning to run some redneck testing on the other rounds, but until then I am going to have to stick with what I know works. No disrespect inteneded, I see you apear to be an expert in ballistic testing, and I am not dismissing your informations, or advice. I just need time to play with the different rounds for myself and then I would feel more comfortable in doing an ammo swap.
That said, getting back to the topic. I have yet to fire Mil issue M855 that had above 2-3 MOA performance, and I have shot a lot of it. I spent 2.5 years on the range teaching deploying soldiers how to shoot. I am wondering where the reports of as much as 6 MOA has come from? Is this just some service member laying claim, or is this an experinced individual who ran actual test's on group sizes in controlled settings?
Last edited by Joseph B.; 03-10-2012 at 09:17 PM. Reason: because i suck at spelling and grammer
In addition to other testing.........
during the SCAR testing of 2005, 2006, 2007, and the Mk20 feasibility assessment of 2009, all current military types of 5.56mm ammunition were tested for accuracy and reliability. Since the M4A1 in it's current configuration was/is the rifle the SCAR was designed to replace, it was measured against the SCAR in all accuracy and reliability testing conducted.
I am all for a better mousetrap, widget, gizmo, do-hicky, bullet, whatever. I am not terribly concerned about accuracy, so long as it is reasonable. I don't know a whole lot of people who can shoot better than 2 or 3 minutes under stress, but having baseline mechanical accuracy that is worse than that, just adds to the equation. A total equation that results in 8 minutes or worse is unacceptable.
As for long range shooting...........I don't even bother with 5.56mm. It is "good enough" at close and medium range, but comes up seriously wanting in terms of performance beyond a couple hundred yards. Even the "magical" 762 that we are told is the answer to all of our problems comes up wanting at the near side of long range. If you really want to engage bad people at extended ranges, one needs to select the right tool for the task at hand. 5.56mm isn't it.
You can get much more of what you want with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.
As usual, SeanM is right on!
Mr. Bell—the reports of M855 with 6 MOA accuracy come directly from lot testing at Lake City on ammunition that was accepted for DOD use based on a waiver of the normal accuracy requirement, as well as testing by NSWC Crane and the U.S. Marine Corps on issued lots of ammunition--I sincerely hope these organizations had experienced individuals actually running the tests and that they were performed in controlled settings…
The characteristics of an ideal performing general purpose rifle projectile were described in commentary by SSA Buford Boone of the FBI BRF:
-- Penetration of 12 to 18 inches
-- No impact AOA induced variations
-- Blind to barriers
-- No deviation from shot line after impact
-- Minimal fragmentation
-- Consistent terminal performance from 0 – 300 meters
-- Sufficient accuracy to hit threat targets out to 600 meters
The photos you included of shots to vehicles appear to illustrate numerous hits spread over front windshields—these are reminiscent of the typical forensic findings identified when vehicles fail to stop at a military checkpoint and are hit with multiple shots, often fired full auto. If the first shot does not fully breach the windshield, the multitude of additional follow on shots may finally get through intact. In addition, vehicles found OCONUS often do not have the same type of laminated auto windshields required on vehicles sold in the U.S.
The typical LE CONUS vehicle engagement setting is quite different. Shots are frequently made at close range, officers often have a limited time in which only a few shots at most can be fired, with the added complication of potentially innocent individuals inside the vehicle. As a result, it is extremely important for the initial shot to fully penetrate the windshield, remain on the initial trajectory without deviation, and fully retain bullet mass without fragmentation to ensure appropriate effects on the targeted threat and no one else.
As shown directly below:
M855 frequently fragments after hitting a typical CONUS double or triple laminated automobile windshield, leading to trajectory deviation, and inadequate penetration; it is quite obvious that M855 is not barrier blind, that it suffers from inconsistent terminal performance, as well as the AOA induced variations identified by the JSWB-IPT. Additionally, lots with waived accuracy requirements may not offer sufficient accuracy. In short, M855 can fail to meet all seven of the characteristics identified by the FBI BRF. On the other hand, barrier blind ammunition like the Fed TBBC and Win bonded do in fact meet all of these requirements. Perhaps that is why NO major LE agencies use M855 any more, yet innumerable organizations now issue one of the barrier blind loads mentioned in the second paragraph here: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19881…where I come from, we call that a clue.
Gary, thank you for the phone call and detailed information! I appreciate that you took the time to get spun-up a bit on the testing, reports and performances. Very good talking with you sir.
Doc,
Thanks for posting all the Awesome Information!!!!
I find it amazing that with all the "brain" power the .mil has that they cant figure out the same bullets that work well for hunting, normal work very well for bad guys.....
Founder Of Keepers Concealment and Lead trainer. Affiliate of CCW Safe, Use discount code ( KC10off )Sign up here https://ccwsafe.com/ref/B65241653
Unfortunately, most hunting projectiles are not Hague compliant...of course, that brings up the question of whether the politically motivated 100 year old Hague convention restrictions are still relevant (see: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19937)...
Reply With Quote