M855a1

Status
Not open for further replies.

Neo-Luddite

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
3,257
Location
Northwest IL--the other 'Downstate'
I've been reading up lately on the new military ball round for the M-4---the m855a1-that replaces the familiar 'green tip'. The performance specs (on paper) of the 62 gr copper/steel round seem outstanding. Of course I want to lay hands on some, but it isn't being sold on the civilian market that I've seen, except for small lots on gunbroker. My thought is that while it wouldn't necessarily be illegal, it is something ATF will somehow feel the need to 'rule' on if it shows up for sale more often. Does anyone have any thoughts/experience with this round and/or know where it can be purchased for reasonable costs?
Thanks-in-advance--Mike (Neo-Luddite).
 
I would be concerned about the source of the m855a1 on GunBroker.

From what I understand it is currently only available to the military.....meaning what you see on GB may be stolen.:eek:
 
I wouldn't buy it even if it was readily available:

"In the 2011 tests of new Army carbine prototypes, the barrels experienced “accelerated bolt wear” from firing the M855A1, because of higher chamber pressure and increased bore temperatures. A Special Operations Command test saw cracks appear on locking lugs and bolts at the cam pin holes on average at 6,000 rounds, but with as few as 3,000 rounds of “intense” full-automatic firing." - http://www.americanrifleman.org/art...ng-the-army-s-m855a1-standard-ball-cartridge/

MK 262 Mod 1 and MK 318 Mod 0 are both readily available, both have excellent terminal ballistics, and neither have the excess pressure issues of M855A1.
 
Most of the newer "high speed" military rounds that are appearing now, like the new 855 and the new Navy round, are basically knock offs of rounds that have been on the civilian market for a long time; for example, the new 855 is so similar to a round manufactured by Liberty Ammunition, that the US Army lost a patent lawsuit against the company and has to pay royalties.. and the new Navy/ Marine round is essentially a Federal Bearclaw
 
The last two qual's I did were with this ammo. I really like it. Shoots very accurately in my issued M4. The issues of wear seem to be from the tip hitting the receiver before the feed ramps. I'm not sure if it's an issue all rifles will exhibit, or if it's mag dependent. P mags seem to present rounds with the tip up a little higher and I don't think there'd be any issues with them. The tip isn't very hard, pretty soft for a steel.
 
It's a good round, but think of it as a +P.

Also any of it you might actually find "fell of the back of a truck".

Mike
 
I'll stick with M193. Besides all the issues cited above, the 55gr round is generally superior to M855, anyway. More velocity, slightly flatter trajectory, better fragmentation, the list goes on.
 
I would skip it simply because of the damage to the feed ramps. The last thing you need is steel tipped rounds digging a groove into your ramps until you start having feed jams. M193 for me.
 
They are three benefits of muzzle velocity, but different parameters. Also, outside of very specific circumstances, the M193 penetrates better. Availability, accuracy and cost are a few more that sway me to the 55gr.

The M855 round was designed to penetrate a Russian helmet at range (forget whether 300 or 500 meters) and serve as light machine gun ammunition for the M249 (SAW). Commonality with the M16/M4 was just a side benefit. Overall performance was seen as secondary to the pet criteria of specific penetration and LMG ammunition.
 
I'm pretty well stocked up with M193; it works well and is fairly accurate in my ARs that I would pass on something like the M855 ammo, even if it was available.
 
The M855 round was designed to penetrate a Russian helmet at range (forget whether 300 or 500 meters) and serve as light machine gun ammunition for the M249 (SAW). Commonality with the M16/M4 was just a side benefit. Overall performance was seen as secondary to the pet criteria of specific penetration and LMG ammunition.
The OP is asking about M855A1 which, despite the name, is an entirely different, and much more recently developed round than the original M855.
 
The A1 ammo the competitors were allowed to test in limited quantities prior to the Army Carbine project was vastly different from the A1 that has been issued recently for testing, I suspect they're still tweaking it to get the performance and reliability characteristics they're looking for. The word on the street was that every competitor in the Army Carbine competition had problems with feed ramp wear except for Competitor C, and that it tended to accelerate throat wear as well. They are still tweaking magazines to alleviate the feed ramp wear issues, from what I hear.
 
I deployed carrying the original M855 round and A1 was starting to fill magazines shortly after I rotated out, so I never got a chance to fire it. The round looks better on paper but I am not a fan of the Army going "lead free" to appease some groups. I intend on feeding my personal AR M855, M193, or Mk262 which ever I can find for a good price.
 
The army is developing new mags that are supposed to solve the problem of the new ammo chewing up the feed ramps.

It is a "+p" round and will cause increased wear and tear.

I think this was largely pushed to appease environmentalists who wanted the army to go "lead free"

I'm happy with M193 and my own reloads (shooting 55gr soft point) and plan to avoid M855A1 like the plague
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top