Any hard data on the new 5.56 round yet?

[LRS_Ranger]

I've been looking, and it seems to me that all anyone knows is the vague press release that came out. Higher velocity, barrier penetration etc. Anyone know the actual velocity, bullet weight, propensity to tumble or fragment in a soft target etc? I never had an issue with the 855, I hope that this is really an improvement and not just political BS. Anybody in the know?

 

[C-grunt]

I have been wondering this myself.

But looking at the design of the new M855A1, I think it should be a reliable fragmenting round. The steel core sticking out of the jacket leaves that little space there that I bet will either peel open the copper jacket or snap the bullet there when it tumbles. Then the base of the core being a different metal... I bet that bond doesnt hold up to well under extreme stress.

 

[LRS_Ranger]

I was kinda thinking the same thing, but you never know. I will be interested to see a gel test, or better yet, to try some myself in the desert. Too bad I'm stuck on recruiting for another 2 years 11 months... *counting down*

 

[C-grunt]

Man I remember when my re-up came around, people were jumping at the chance for recruiting. Sounds like you got stuck with it.

 

[45bthompson]

I'm with the 82nd and in the desert now. We might be feilding the M855A1 soon but nothing official. Some of us are in multi cam. My company is in the ACPOO"S. I know they like it when we test stuff out. They are going to have to hurry up. We are winding down and 101 is already showing up. I will make sure to send out a "range report" if we get any of the new stuff.

 

[wishin]

Please educate an old soldier and explain what an ACPOO is.

 

[Hawthorne2k]

http://images.quickblogcast.com/35238-32833/s_w_k22.jpg

Not a soldier (but getting old). My guess is it's a, um, euphemism for ACU.

 

[gondorian]

ACPOO is meant to be critical of the relatively poor performance of the Universal Camouflage Pattern on the ACU. That is, the pattern is the jack of all trades and the master of none.

 

[Owen Sparks]

As a civilian I am done with the .223. The 6.8 does everything better with twice as much lead per trigger pull. It is suitable for dangerous two legged game in the 200 pound class. No need for fragmentation, tumbling bullets, three round bursts or other gimmiks to compensate for poor stopping power.

 

[45bthompson]

Please educate an old soldier and explain what an ACPOO is.

Not a soldier (but getting old). My guess is it's a, um, euphemism for ACU.

ACPOO is meant to be critical of the relatively poor performance of the Universal Camouflage Pattern on the ACU. That is, the pattern is the jack of all trades and the master of none.

Nope. It is a new experimental uniform that my unit has been field testing for the last half of this deployment. Basically it is the ACU uniform but some of the digital pattern has brown it it. They kind of look like REALLY dirty ACU's. The crotch still rips out too fast.

 

[45bthompson]

That is not the official name. I don't think they have a name.

 

[C-grunt]

As a civilian I am done with the .223. The 6.8 does everything better with twice as much lead per trigger pull. It is suitable for dangerous two legged game in the 200 pound class. No need for fragmentation, tumbling bullets, three round bursts or other gimmiks to compensate for poor stopping power.

Care to explain the situation where the .225/5.56 failed you?

 

[crossrhodes]

From what little I've read about it. It's supposed to be a scaled down version of Remington's Dangerous Game round with a fragmenting tip for entry and a core for continued penetration limiting the yaw, as compared to others.
I look back in history and this is my conclusion on the 5.56 and the twist rate of the M16. When it was first fielded in the late 50's early 60's to the advisers in Vietnam, it was called the "black death" by the VC because of the why it would tumble and tore through the body. The rifle, then ,had a 1 in 14 twist. The terrain was short distance and the enemy wasn't equipped with body armor...cold war was in it's baby stage.
As tensions increased with a more modern army as a possible adversary, and had body armor with the potential of an increased stand off range in small arms fighting. So, we went to 62 gr with a penetrator and a 1 in 7 twist. Now we are faced with an adversary that has no body armor, as with Vietnam, but with some in creased range but rounds now passes through the body and not causing the damage it did when it tumbled on impact.
I'll stop my rambling but do you see where I'm heading on this.
I'll mention that the SCAR with it's 13 inch barrel was also a determination on fielding the new round too.
I won't bag on the 5.56, I'm here, drinking coffee and exposing all of you to my grammatical slaughter of the king's English...thanks to the 5.56.

Semper Fi.
Guns - out

 

[chrissmallwood]

One question that comes to my mind is will it still stabilize in 1-9 twist rates. From the picture it looks slightly longer than the older bullet so I was wondering if it would still work for those of us with 1-9" barrels.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

So, we went to 62 gr with a penetrator and a 1 in 7 twist. Now we are faced with an adversary that has no body armor, as with Vietnam, but with some in creased range but rounds now passes through the body and not causing the damage it did when it tumbled on impact.

Rifling twist rate does not affect the bullet's propensity to yaw and fragment. There's more than one problem affecting terminal performance of the US Military M855 "green tip" cartridge:

• M855, using slightly modified version of the FN SS109 bullet, was originally designed for the FN Minimi M249 SAW, which has a 20" barrel. To maintain commonality of ammunition the M16 was modified to fire M855. The M16 also has a 20" barrel. When fired from a 20" barrel the M855 bullet will reliably yaw and substantially fragment out to a distance of a little more than 150 yards. When fired from an M4 carbine, which is equipped with a 14.5" barrel, the bullet achieves a slower velocity, which decreases the range in which it substanitally fragments to just a little more than 50 yards. At distances farther than 50 yards the wounding effects of M855, when fired from and M4 carbine, is greatly reduced.
• There are issues with "fleet yaw", which in simple terms, means the bullet does not achieve the same level of stability when fired from individual weapons of the same kind. For example, the bullet may be more stable in flight (less wobble) when fired from one M4 carbine and may have less stability (more wobble) in flight when fired from another M4 carbine. This "fleet yaw" affects the bullet's angle-of-attack when it strikes the target. A bullet that hits the target at a slightly larger yaw angle will yaw earlier in the target. Likewise a bullet that hits the target closer to 90-degree (in relation to its long axis) will typically yaw after it penetrates deeper into the target. The wound profile illustration of the M855 cartridge (below) depicts "typical" terminal performance characteristics, which applies to approximately 70 percent of bullets tested. 15% will yaw earlier, and 15% will yaw later, which is due, in part, to "fleet yaw" characteristics of individual weapons. "Fleet yaw" identically affects the Vietnam era M193 bullet also. 5.56 bullets show a greater propensity for fleet yaw variations than other calibers.
• Common manufacturing variations of individual M855 bullets that affect stability and angle-of-attack.

(A small entrance wound combined with a small exit wound is commonly misinterpreted in the field by soldiers as the bullet merely "drilling" through the target with little wounding effect, when the bullet may have indeed yawed and fragmented, and a large fragment produces the "small" exit wound.)

More info (see slides 7 & 8): http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

M855 Wound Profile:

M193 (Vietnam era) Wound Profile:

 

[gondorian]

@45bthompson

That is not the official name. I don't think they have a name.

Oh, I know what you mean, its called UCP-Delta

 

[speaksoftly]

Care to explain the situation where the .225/5.56 failed you?

Haha...johnny on the spot. Personally, I wouldn't want to take a shot from the new OR old 5.56.

 

[C-grunt]

Haha...johnny on the spot. Personally, I wouldn't want to take a shot from the new OR old 5.56.

Exactly. I have seen the M855 create some truely nasty wounds. God forbid that thing hits a bone in the body.

No easily shouldered rifle round will drop a bad guy all of the time. Thats why everyone teaches controlled pairs, even with the 7.62. Being that the 5.56 is used much much more in the desert than its big brother, you will see people recover from these shots more than others.

Like I have said many times before..... the only person I ever saw live after being subject to a GOOD COM shot with a rifle, was shot with a 7.62 out of an Abrams coax.

Does this mean 7.62 isnt very lethal? No. It means that guy is a very tough, lucky terrorist.

 

[dougw47]

5.56 round...and more.

A better bullet will not win the war. But it will help! Going to 6.8 or 7.62 will not win the war. But, if that is what we decide our troops need, give it now!

To win the war, we need a massive troop increase, boots on the ground to go out and eliminate the enemy. We can do that with what we have now as far as arms. 22's will kill the enemy...whether it takes 2, or 3 hits with the current ammo as some claim, or perhaps better one-stop shots with the new stuff.

But whatever it takes...until we kill enough of them, they will continue to ambush, snipe and bomb us. Until they believe we are in this to win, and are not going to pack up and run in 2014, they believe all they have to do is wait! That our spineless politicians will wimp and fold, turn Quisling.

They may!

We could not win with 30,000 troops...70,000 troops, now our increase to 100,000 will make a difference. But is it enough? Politicians and Generals seem to me to try and just "Make do!" Not enough troops, planes, artillery or drones.

Give our troops what they need! Stop pu**iefooting around, get some cojones and commit to winning the war. Wars are won by committed people willing to pay the price...not just money, but the precious lives of our beloved troops.

If we as a nation decide that we are not willing to pay that price...stop the hypocrisy, the lies and stop b*llsh*tting the troops that we support them. Bring them home before another brave soldier, sailor or marine makes the ultimate sacrifice for an un-appreciative nation, soul-sick and destitute.

We could have won the war in Viet Nam, but ridiculous ROE's and arbitrary bounds on imaginary battlefields tied our hands...letting the enemy retreat and regroup...to slaughter our men another day. Stupid then, stupid now!

Today in Afghanistan, we are showing that we have learned nothing from history! We did not let the Germans or the Japs have sanctuaries, we pursued them to their homes and made them surrender. If the battlefield is defined by the troops, the military...no place is a sanctuary for the enemy.

If the battlefield is defined by the politicians, and the enemy can retreat to a safe area where we will not pursue...they have no need to surrender, or to seek peace. If we can see this, what excuse do our "Rulers" have for pursing this abominable course of action?

The Federal Gov't under Sherman destroyed Atlanta in one of the most ruthless acts of the war. While this caused outrage, it sowed the seeds of despair and fear, making the South more ready to seek peace and surrender.

The Federal Gov't realized the invasion of the Jap homeland would result in millions of casualties. We were committed to win the war and dropped two nukes. It caused outrage, but sowed the seeds of despair and fear, causing the Japs to seek peace and surrender.

There is nothing of value in Afghanistan...no target worthy of a nuke. Only the Muhjadeen...scattered enemy troops, small groups hiding in the hills. Nukes won't work...only putting enough troops in the field to seek out and eliminate them will work. That comes with a high price, lives. Ours are important to me...theirs are of no consequence.

Do we want to win? The politicians say YES, but they lie. They want to win, if they can get it at a bargain-basement price. That is not possible. What do we want? 50% percent of the nation think we are losing the war.
50% percent want to pack up and run. Less than 50% want to stay and fight.

One of McCrystals problems was he said we would lose the war in 12 months. If the former head of the forces in Afghanistan believed that enough to get fired...doesn't somebody in this administration need to pull their head(s) out and take a good, fresh look?

If we stick to the current plan, Pacification and Nation-building...it may work, if we are willing to stay at war for 20 more years. Somehow I don't see that.

Anybody esle see it differently? Anybody got a better plan that does not inclued 50,000 to 100,000 total casualties? I am listening...

God bless America, God bless our troops...they deserve the best of us.

 

[Wahoo95]

So what do we win???

 

[C-grunt]

So what do we win???

The knowledge that we killed the people who cowardly slaughtered a few thousand of our citizens.

Also, recent geological surveys have shown the Afghan mountains to be full of minerals and metals including one of the largest deposits of lithium in the world. They were stating that Afghanistan has the potential to be "the Saudi Arabia of lithium".