Army's Proposed New M855A1 to Use Solid Copper Bullet

[NG VI]

I think if the new tech works better and is cheaper, great. But everything has sacrifices, and I'm hoping that in the case of fighting vehicles and ammunition, we are giving up ease of manufacture and gaining performance without too much price jump.

The new M855A1 actually does look like it might work out better than the regular M855, but I want to see some gelatin tests anyway because I'm curious.

 

[Kentucky_Rifleman]

so I take it that Casefull has never had lead poisoning.

I don't know about Casefull, but to date there is not one single documented case of any U.S. military or National Guard range leeching lead or contaminating any water supply.

Not ONE. Zero. Zip. Nada.

In the worst economic crash since the Great Depression, I'm not in favor of spending tax dollars on a problem that isn't a problem.

There are so many other problems we could work on with the money the U.S. Army has dumped down this hole.

But hey, it's just my opinion.
KR

 

[Owen]

not one single documented case of any U.S. military or National Guard range leeching lead or contaminating any water supply.

No doubt. On the other hand the army got some small arms ammo development money to improve what our soldiers use. This doesn't happen often. Before, say, Casefull, decides that its wimpy because its environmentally friendly and satisfies my hippy dependencies according to madmike, lets try to figure out exactly what the Army came up with.


http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com...ues-new-m855a1-ammo-to-troops-in-afghanistan/

Looks like a ballistic tip to me...

 

[NG VI]

A ballistic tip made of steel though. Looks to me like it'll probably fragment into steel and copper sections very reliably, but at short ranges probably won't fragment into as many pieces as the lead core M855. Not sure that's a huge problem, two to four bigger fragments might be better than a snowstorm of miniscule ones.

 

[Kentucky_Rifleman]

No doubt. On the other hand the army got some small arms ammo development money to improve what our soldiers use. This doesn't happen often. Before, say, Casefull, decides that its wimpy because its environmentally friendly and satisfies my hippy dependencies according to madmike, lets try to figure out exactly what the Army came up with.

I'm all about improving the weapons and equipment our troops use. There is no excuse for our men and women to have anything less than the very best weapons and equipment technology can invent, money can buy, and American ingenuity can devise, BUT...

1. The "development money" the Army got came from tax dollars.

2. The primary concern driving this development is, by all accounts, "environmental conscience."

3. To date, the efforts to create a "green bullet" have failed - that money was utterly wasted.

My argument is that those same tax dollars could have bought better body armor for our troops already on the ground, or been spent to develop a better rifle than the M16 family (or a suitable companion rifle), or been spent to purchase the better bullets recently acquired by the Marines, or any one of a thousand other better uses.

So much of the environmental propaganda Americans are subjected to by our own media is based on lies, half-truths, and conjecture.

Even the theories that have some basis in truth seek to use our current resources to solve problems that aren't problems yet, and, in many cases, will likely never become problems.

It's a luxury to have an eye on the future, but it's a necessity to have an eye on the present.

The potential problems of tomorrow are of far less concern to me than the very real problems of today.

Any other line of thought seems faulty to me.

KR

 

[Owen]

Product development is always expensive, and often leads down blind alleys. Saying development money spent traveling down those alleys is wasted is displaying ignorance of the development process.

Given, the Navy small arms community would have done it cheaper, but then again, the Navy small arms folks don't have the crosses to bear that the Army does.

But then, I a tad biased in that regard.

 

[Kentucky_Rifleman]

Saying development money spent traveling down those alleys is wasted is displaying ignorance of the development process.

I disagree.

The primary function of a military bullet is to wound or kill enemy combatants.

If the main concern driving the research was to find a more efficient way of wounding/killing enemy combatants, I would have no complaints.

Such was not the primary concern. The goal of the Army's research was to find a more environmentally-friendly way to wound/kill enemy combatants.

By my way of thinking, being "greener" should be at the bottom of the list of considerations when designing bullets.

Again, this is simply my own opinion, and there are lots of folks who would describe my views on this issue as "cold" or "heartless." I'm not offended by that, as my view here is a specie of immediate pragmatism, which is, by necessity, coldly calculating.

KR

 

[Owen]

By my way of thinking, being "greener" should be at the bottom of the list of considerations when designing bullets.

But that's not really what they did. They came up with a better projojectile, OBTW, its green.

 

[Kentucky_Rifleman]

Perhaps I'm misreading the various news accounts I've read on this subject.

The following lines open the April 2 post on the subject from The Military Daily News:

Special Operations Command and now the Marine Corps are fielding a deadlier 5.56mm round, but the Army says soldiers can’t have it. Instead, the service is holding on to its dream of environmentally friendly ammunition.

The Whole Article is here.

Please explain how I am misunderstanding or misinterpreting this situation.

Everything I've read explains how the primary goal of the research was to create an environmentally-friendlier bullet.

KR

 

[Kentucky_Rifleman]

This is from Tactical-Life:

The Enhanced Performance Round contains an environmentally friendly projectile that eliminates up to 2,000 tons of lead from the manufacturing process each year in direct support of Army commitment to environmental stewardship, the release states.

KR

 

[Kentucky_Rifleman]

This is from Defense Review:

The Enhanced Performance Round contains an environmentally-friendly projectile that eliminates up to 2,000 tons of lead from the manufacturing process each year in direct support of Army commitment to environmental stewardship.

Woods said the effort is a clear example of how “greening” a previously hazardous material can also provide extremely beneficial performance improvements.

It seems clear to me that the governing concern was developing "greener" bullets, not more efficient ones.

Even if the new round is, as it is being touted, more efficient than the older round it replaces, I doubt it will be as effective as the Marine-adopted round.

And even if the new round is the best bullet yet, it is by accident, since its killing efficiency was clearly a secondary consideration.

No statistics are yet available regarding the increases in cost of production. If the new bullet is significantly more expensive than the older round, and it's not everything DOD claims it to be, then the entire project is yet another huge waste of time, energy, and valuable resources, all to fix a problem that's not really a problem.

KR

 

[Redneck with a 40]

Why spend all this money and effort trying to make the 5.56 a long range lethal round, which it will never be. I wouldn't trust it beyond 300 meters. I think they should just bite the bullet, make a mass transition to 6.8 SPC and be done with it. I think the soldiers would be happier as well.

I'm still a believer in 7.62x39 under 200 meters, I'd definitely take it over 5.56.

 

[Kentucky_Rifleman]

Why spend all this money and effort trying to make the 5.56 a long range lethal round, which it will never be. I wouldn't trust it beyond 300 meters. I think they should just bite the bullet, make a mass transition to 6.8 SPC and be done with it. I think the soldiers would be happier as well.

Okay. There are a couple of considerations to take into account.

1. All of our combat troops have been trained on the Stoner platform rifle, specifically that platform in the 5.56 cartridge. To change our entire arsenal would be expensive, time-intensive, and require at least some re-training of our troops.

Anyone who shoots rifles knows that identical rifles chambered in different calibers will have different ballistics, and thus perform very differently in use. Even re-chambering the Stoner platform to another caliber will require some re-training for our troops to use it proficiently.

2. There is no single cartridge that "does-it-all" equally well. There are several threads that argue (I believe successfully) for the advantages the current rifles have in urban areas and short-range combat.

Several veterans hold the opinion that the 5.56 cartridge is not as effective at the longer ranges we're encountering in Afghanistan. The 7.62 NATO round is being used to greater success in the open spaces.

As much as DOD loves uniformity in all things military (with good reason), military thinking seems to be coming to the recognition that our troops should have access to multiple calibers and platforms, choosing the rifle that best meets the needs of the tasks at hand. This is why some of our soldiers are being re-armed with updated M14s.

Having a good mix of weapons available to any unit allows greater flexibility in our response tactics in a wide range of theater conditions, much like some American troops in WWII being issued the M1 Garand, while others were issued the M1 Carbine, still others carried a BAR, and others were issued the Thompson sub-machine gun.

The soldiers will be happiest with whatever works best, and they may be best served by a mixture of weapons, but that's another debate.

KR

 

[ShamWow]

So there is less muzzle flash for the new M855A1, what about muzzle blast?

 

[Balrog]

If we get into a protracted war to the point that we start having to ration items, and metals become scarce, is it a good idea to have a bullet made out of copper?

Copper has lots of better uses than in a bullet.

 

[C-grunt]

The new M85A1 doesnt use a full copper bullet like previously believed.

 

[ShamWow]

My guess for the powder is there is no way a merely faster powder could do the job of having M16 like muzzle velocity out of a short 14.5" M4 while still maintaining pressure at the end of a 20" M16. The Army must be using a special long duration “magic” powder that we don’t have access to, probably similar to that “Leverevolution” “Light Magnum” stuff Hornady is loading these days.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

We start to have a metals shortage, and copper is going up in price, and THAT is when they think they need a copper bullet.:banghead:

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I don't know about Casefull, but to date there is not one single documented case of any U.S. military or National Guard range leeching lead or contaminating any water supply.

Not ONE. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Not with lead; but several of those lead-free "green" environmental rounds that have been developed have created some serious problems. The Army had to shut down the range in Massachusetts where the precursor to M855A1 was used.