M855A1 New 5.56 military round. Huge progress in 223 rem. Anyone has tried this?

[KW]

I'd love to see some of this get into the hands of private citizens just so we could see some actual testing of it. Given the huge disparity between the comments of folks like DocGKR vs. the info the Army has released it's difficult to know what to think. If the Army's claims are true it would be a pretty significant step forward.

 

[1stmarine]

We know these facts:
- It shoots flatter and flies better than the M885
-The design is based on the arrowhead rod core design that has proven to be very effective in hard targets.
-There is a new powder from the wizards of Winchester at St. Marks.
-This has been the most tested round in the history of the military.
-Tests show improvements in all areas, specially huge improvements in terminal effectiveness.

I do believe it performs as advertised but I cannot confirm this first hand as I have not fired even one single round. I cannot wait to get my hands into a new batch to shoot at some hard and soft targets.

I found this summary in the Army's report....

 

[Z-Michigan]

I've also read reports from several guys in the industry who claim that pressure levels in M855A1 are on par with a 5.56x45 proof round.

That's alarming. But considering that M855 was already at the limit of 5.56 NATO pressure levels and that the Army statement says that M855A1 has "increased" chamber pressure, it's not terribly shocking. Wonder what that will do for bolt life, gas port erosion, and overall durability.

For those who don't know, DocGKR is a scientist who works for (IIRC) Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center, and is one of if not the current leading experts on terminal ballistics effects.

 

[1stmarine]

Burning rates is almost the same. Just tad faster.
My guess is a small peak but not 'hunging around for too long' The Nato cases can take much more and the military chambers are designed to manage it very well due to longer leads. A properly gased AR in the first place should not have any issues.
This has been tested with all sort of weapons systems. I wouldn't be too concern. If this cartridge becomes established armorers might choose to reduce gas in the short carbine porting. We'll see.
Mine are gassed to barely run with the pussiest rounds I can find. Like the the PMC bronze. But I also have a couple of piston M4s and those have adjustable blocks.

For those who don't know, DocGKR is a scientist who works for (IIRC) Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center, and is one of if not the current leading experts on terminal ballistics effects.

Pretty cool. Didn't know.

One of the things it was found is the little air pocket in the M885 when reaching a hard barrier at an angle, the tip would bend 'leading' the bullet into deflection. This has been effectively demonstrated using car windshields at a 45 degree angle with soft targets behind simulating drivers and shooting a various ranges. The new round totally outperformed the M885 in this and many other tests like no one had seen before for a multipurpose battle round. Brick, cement, wood, armored plates, etc... were in the menu of barriers all effectively defeated even at 300 yards.
Size and caliber alone doesn't matter. Powder and Bullet design Does make a huge difference.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

The new M855A1 bullet merely breaks into two pieces in human soft tissues - the steel tip and copper base core.

Terminal performance is identical to M193 and M855 at an impact velocity below 2700 fps - in which the bullet simply fragments into two pieces, with similar (less effective) wound trauma.

Mk 318 Mod 0 is superior because the entire (front) lead core is designed to fragment substantially in human soft tissue while the solid copper base provides penetration performance.

 

[1stmarine]

Shawn,
The reports says there is consistent fragmentation and the two cores split and wobble efficiently in the soft targets even at longer ranges. This is not the area of biggest improvement but with the intermediate and hard targets is where they have resolved a lot of problems.
Were you able to test the M855A1? I couldn't find the 2700fps threshold. It seems that performs well at longer ranges.
please let us know where we can find this round or the bullets and we will reload some.

....The M855A1 is not yaw-dependent. Like any other bullet, it "wobbles" along its trajectory. However, the EPR provides the same effects when striking its target, regardless of the angle of yaw. This means the EPR provides the same desired effects every time, whether in close combat situations or longer engagements. In fact, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) verified through live-fire tests against soft targets that, on average, the M855A1 surpassed the M80 7.62mm round. The 7.62mm, although a larger caliber, suffers from the same consistency issue as the M855, but to a higher degree.

This is another chart I found there..

 

[Shawn Dodson]

The reports says there is consistent fragmentation and the two cores split and tumble efficiently in the soft targets even at longer ranges.

"Consistent fragmentation" simply means the bullet breaks into two pieces.

The fragments do not "tumble" in soft targets. Each simply yaws to achieve a state of stable "flight" in dense soft tissues (drag stabilization).

The Army's report (and public information) is "political" and designed to play up certain performance characteristics and down play others.

The ammo is tightly controlled by the US Military. Don't expect to see it (or the projectiles) available to the general public due to it's "barrier blind" design.

 

[bigedp51]

The British .303 hit harder than American or German rifle ammunition in WWI and WWII, the reason is simple the light bullet tip and bullet RPM cause the bullet to yaw sideways when it hits soft flesh. The bullet base weighs more than the bullet tip and heavy arse end of the bullet tries to catch up with the nose and thus turns sideways.

The problem here is the British knew this before WWI and we are now just teaching the old dog a new trick..............100 years after the British developed the idea. :banghead:
Its still a Micky Mouse gun and there is no substitute for bullet weight.

Below, a "redesigned" .303 Dum Dum bullet without the Geneva Convention crying about it.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

The British .303 hit harder than American or German rifle ammunition in WWI and WWII, the reason is simple the light bullet tip and bullet RPM cause the bullet to yaw sideways when it hits soft flesh. The bullet base weighs more than the bullet tip and heavy arse end of the bullet tries to catch up with the nose and thus turns sideways.

All pointed FMJ rifle bullets yaw - because the bullet's center of gravity is located nearer the base than tip.

The bullet does not travel sideways through flesh. It simply yaws 180 degrees, as it seeks a state of stability in flesh, to travel base forward.

 

[bigedp51]

Shawn Dodson

And when you put a light aluminum tip in the bullet it yaws sooner and inflects more damage. This is why the Germans cried foul in WWI because the .303 bullet did more damage than American or German bullets with a solid lead core.

Anything else you want to "educate" me on there Mr. Dadson.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

And when you put a light aluminum tip in the bullet it yaws sooner and inflects more damage.

 

[1stmarine]

It would be nice to see more independent testing like always.

I am going to talk to the ammo distribution center here locally to call the place 68wj sent and see if we can order some from those guys. Since we work a lot with the LEOs here they might be able to send us some cases.
Not sure if it is the same powder but the bullet and core design looks the same.
I do not care if they can send some bullets samples. I just want to take it to the farm and shoot some hard targets and gelatin and see what it actually does.
Just curiosity more than anything else at this point.

 

[bigedp51]

Shawn Dodson

Wound studies after WWI showed that the .303 Mk.7 bullet inflicted more damage than the 30-06 or 8mm. Your 7.62 NATO wound ballistic chart shows the lead core .308 bullet yawing 180 degrees at 28 cm or 11 inches. The aluminum tipped British .303 Mk.7 bullet would turn 180 degrees much quicker and inflict a "larger and longer" wound cavity due to this fact.

Did you have any educational points to your two postings you were trying to make. The M16/A4 is still a sub caliber mouse gun and they are still looking for the "miracle" bullet to improve its performance 43 years later.

 

[1stmarine]

All these points are very interesting. I think it makes sense to see what the two core components do in the M855A1. In one of the videos they look several times at two main fragments in the gelatin. This makes me wonder if the cup separates consistently then you have the core split almost always.

Two big fragments mean twice the chance to hit a vital. Same principal used by the PD ammo designers in Belgium.

One thing is clear the bullet is not the same after going through any target, soft, hard or intermediate.

I wished I could find more details about the soft target performance. I will keep looking.

 

[HorseSoldier]

855A1 is a program that should have had a stake driven through its heart, but it had Big Army hubris driving it. SOST would have been a better option for service wide use, as per SOCOM and the USMC.

 

[68wj]

855A1 is a program that should have had a stake driven through its heart, but it had Big Army hubris driving it. SOST would have been a better option for service wide use, as per SOCOM and the USMC.

Agreed! Too bad they have to play environmental warrior and label lead as a concern.

 

[1stmarine]

Hi if the SOST would have been a better option could you provide the information why. I am not arguing with anyone I just want to learn why.
I am trying to keep this thread educational unlike some other threads.
Thanks.

 

[68wj]

This is DocGKR's response to the Army's press release of the 855A1. I will post it here, but cannot comment other than 3rd hand information.

Sorry, but I am not impressed. M855A1 EPR would make nice linked MG ammo, but is NOT my first choice for a carbine or rifle. It doesn't help that the recent Big Army briefings on the topic are filled with misleading statements and outright falsehoods. For example, in the public briefing shown above:

Page 2 touts match like accuracy for M855A1 EPR, yet the acceptance standard allows for up to 5.5 MOA accuracy—hardly match like. In contrast, Mk318 has a 2 MOA acceptance standard.

Page 3 seems impressive, but fails to offer details.

Page 4 is worrisome, as it indicates that M855A1 EPR has a higher chamber pressure compared with current M855. Port pressure on the M4 is already too high, what is the increased chamber/port pressure of M855A1 EPR going to do to bolt life and barrel life on M4’s? How come Army ammo is only getting flash suppressed in 2010? Why wasn’t this incorporated for the past 50 years?

Page 5 is partially true, as M855A1 EPR is indeed less yaw dependent than M855, but then so is Mk318. The 7.62 mm comparison is a bit misleading; for example, to which version of M80 ball are they referring, the steel jacket or the copper jacket, as terminal performance is different.

Page 6 is highly inaccurate, as it states that both M855A1 EPR and M855 have good performance against car windows, yet this is patently untrue. Likewise it states that both M855A1 EPR and M855 offer good accuracy—this is not always correct, as some recent lots of M855 have been pushing 6 MOA. It also states that both M855A1 EPR and M855 have a trajectory match with M856 trace—this is not true, as all three cartridges offer different trajectories, as has been demonstrated by previous Doppler radar tracking and accuracy testing. Some Army sources have stated that units are NOT required to re-zero when transitioning to M855A1 EPR; this is a gross error of judgment that could result in needless fatalities.

Page 7 does not accurately reflect the trajectory differences between the various rounds due to the truncated scale—it would be better to provide the numerical data recorded when actually shooting the various cartridges side-by-side at different distances. Let's take an M16A4 or M4 and set a target out at 500-600; then we will shoot 10 rounds of M855, 10 rounds of M856, and 10 rounds of M855A1 EPR and compare the POA/POI for each cartridge type––guess what, they will NOT be the same. So much for having the same trajectory...

Page 8 illustrates the POOR terminal performance characteristics of M855A1 EPR against automobile windshields—look how the projectile has fragmented into separate pieces after first hitting the windshield; it is galling that the briefing tries to make this sound like a good thing by claiming it increases the probability of a hit. True barrier blind projectiles do NOT come apart like M855A1 EPR. Notice that no actual gel photos or wound profiles are included.

Page 9 implies that 5.56 mm M855A1 EPR offers better terminal performance than a 7.62 mm projectile—this may be true when comparing EPR from 2010 against 1950’s era technology like M80 FMJ, but not if a true apples-to-apples comparison is made against a modern 7.62 mm cartridge. For example compare M855A1 EPR against M80A1 EPR or Mk319. Page 9 also states that M855A1 EPR can defeat soft Kevlar armor rated against handguns—yet most center rifle projectiles can defeat soft armor. It also implies that M855A1 EPR can also penetrate some Level III armor; this is true, as M855A1 EPR can defeat compressed polyethelene hard armor plates, of course current M855 already does that. What M855A1 EPR cannot accomplish is penetrating current eSAPI armor. If we go into combat against a true peer competitor nation who issues equivalent hard armor, M855A1 EPR is going to be useless.

Page 10: M855A1 EPR does penetrate steel and cinder block better than M855.

Page 11 has nothing to do with terminal ballistics, but is correct, as far as it goes.

Page 12: M855A1 EPR is generally more accurate than M855, but as noted, both share the same accuracy standard; if the Army is really believes M855A1 EPR is more accurate, why not adopt a tighter accuracy standard like as required in the Mk318 or Mk262 contracts?

Page 13 repeats the comments that M855A1 EPR offers better performance than M80 ball, but that is not a fair comparison, as previously stated.

The M855A1 EPR program is a damning indictment of the utter FAILURE of the Army procurement system to rapidly and effectively respond to the needs of our Nations troops—especially in time of war. This incomplete briefing is flawed at best, insulting at worst. 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 EPR costs twice as much as Mk318 and is also more expensive than even Mk262 and 70 gr Optimal/brown tip?

There are other serious and significant issues that are not touched on in this public briefing; suffice to say that there are good reasons why the Marine Corps and USSOCOM are issuing Mk318 Mod0 and not M855A1 EPR.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Hi if the SOST would have been a better option could you provide the information why.

As I stated in my first post (#30 of this thread): Mk 318 Mod 0 is superior because the entire (front) lead core is designed to fragment substantially in human soft tissue while the solid copper base provides penetration performance.

The substantial number of lead fragments pepper surrounding soft tissues with holes - which are then torn open by the subsequent temporary cavity to increase permanant disruption.

M855A1 does not shed fragments like Mk318. It simply breaks in half and then produces two small diverging wound tracks. It produces less wound trauma than Mk318.

 

[1stmarine]

I have not seen any conclusive proof one way or another. It looks that the miltarty does a good job to disclose what they have but to save the actual facts how they arrived to that conclusion.

 

[buttrap]

So 40 some years later they have reinvented the M-193 load in another wrapper?

 

[1stmarine]

Reports from the front courtesy of GreenWolf...

It indeed is already in use in Afghanistan. My son, who just returned from another tour there was using it. He is saying it is much more accurate and lethal at 300-600m than the M855 it replaces. Typically they are seeing the bullet separate inside targets even at ranges greater than 400m. When his unit arrived the Taliban were typically standing up at ranges greater than 400m to show their disdain for the 5.56mm round. They aren't doing that any more where the M855A1 has been deployed. Haven't heard anything about hard target performance, or at close range against soft targets. Typical engagement ranges in Afghanistan now are at 400+ meters.

I am also hearing that the 7.62mm SCAR-H rifle has been a failure in Afghanistan with many reliability issues and loss of confidence by troops.

 

[W.E.G.]

Are those tungsten projectiles still $10/each?

 

[1stmarine]

There is no tungsten anymore.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

When his unit arrived the Taliban were typically standing up at ranges greater than 400m to show their disdain for the 5.56mm round. They aren't doing that any more where the M855A1 has been deployed.

I realize you are quoting someone else; but this comment makes no sense to me. When his unit arrived, Taliban were so disdainful of the 5.56mm round that they would stand up at 400m? Since he knows that the reason the Taliban were standing is because they were disdainful of 5.56mm, could you ask him if he could go into detail and ask whether they were disdainful because they knew they would never be hit at 400m by the average GI, or whether it was because being hit at 400m with 5.56mm was merely a flesh wound of no significant concern?