I did not know that. That's surprising because the M855A1 and Mk262 are very expensive....
Quite informativeMy friends who have recently come back from Afghanistan within the last few years were all using A1.
I gotta disagree with the sin that M855 just ice picks. It does have a long time to upset in certain situations, but it's not super widespread and M855 has been killing the crap out of badguys for the past 19 years. I've seen multiple guys xhog with it from bad badge distance out to a few hundred yards.
This article has some gruesome pics of what M855 will do.
https://www.shadowspear.com/2016/06...h-an-ak47-than-an-m4-contains-graphic-images/
Remember... the M855A1 uses a "Green" lead free bullet... so in the long run, it is cheaper. FAR less range lead cleanup, far less lead exposure to the troops.I did not know that. That's surprising because the M855A1 and Mk262 are very expensive....
Remember... the M855A1 uses a "Green" lead free bullet... so in the long run, it is cheaper. FAR less range lead cleanup, far less lead exposure to the troops.
And to be blunt.. the improved, more consistent "wounding" performance, over the previous M193 and M855 is considerably better.
55gr FMJ, and 62gr M855 ammo will "work". But there are far better more consistently performing bullet designs.
The M193 bullet is very yaw dependent. The angle of impact for the bullet can produce very different wounding results.
Different enough, that one 55gr FMJ ( with little yaw ) might ice pick straight through some thing, and the next with slightly more angle of impact ( more yaw ) and that same bullet could dramatically fragment.
And the fragmentation is heavily dependent on velocity... and by velocity, I mean barrel lengths will be a factor.
That is the problem with yaw dependent bullet designs.
Many, Many Modern bullet designs are not as heavily dependent on velocity being a factor or the yaw impact angle.
Speer Gold Dot .223 loads are a very good example.
Reliable, rapid expansion, while retaining bullet mass /weight ( via a bonded bullet ) at reasonable speeds.
The Black Hills 5.56 Sierra 77gr TMK load, is a great example of a great soft target bullet design, repeatable, consistent performance, a short neck, and then violent fragmentation... every time ( within its design velocity threshold )
Then on the other end of current 5.56 bullet designs.. are the Blind Barrier loads.
Tougher bullets , meant to penetrate Barriers and provide rapid violent expansion.. a great example of that is the Mk318 Rapid expansion, with a good wound channel, and very deep penetration from the non-expanding base.
All that said ... no one wants to be shot with a 55gr FMJ bullet.. even if it zips through flesh, it could hit a bone and cause massive damage.
But my comments are geared towards improving your odds, via a more consistently performing / predictable bullet.
Technology has vastly improved consistent bullet performance... IMHO, we, you and I should use ammo better then 55gr FMJ.
http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm
I did not know that. That's surprising because the M855A1 and Mk262 are very expensive....
Not to deviate from the thread, but how well does 7.62x51 M80 ball wound ?
My friends who have recently come back from Afghanistan within the last few years were all using A1.
I gotta disagree with the idea that M855 just ice picks. It does have a long time to upset in certain situations, but it's not super widespread and M855 has been killing the crap out of badguys for the past 19 years. I've seen multiple guys shot with it from bad breathe distance out to a few hundred yards.
This article has some gruesome pics of what M855 will do.
https://www.shadowspear.com/2016/06...h-an-ak47-than-an-m4-contains-graphic-images/
Not to deviate from the thread, but how well does 7.62x51 M80 ball wound ?
The problem(beauty?) of any .30 Ball rifle round is... Out-Standing penetration.
As for effectiveness...?
... If you skip ahead to time stamp 20:30, and Hector Cafferata's story, the CQB effectiveness of .30 Ball Rifle is articulated.
GR
It does and it doesn't depending on the yaw angle upon impact. The guys at Ft. Benning did a pretty detailed study when the 1st complaints cropped up concerning M855 effectiveness. Their findings were that the yaw at impact had an effect, most rounds fragmented, but occasionally they didn't. Their solution was to shoot everybody worth shooting twice.
I would be willing to bet quite a large sum of money that at least 90% of the complaints that we have ever heard about M-855's effectiveness are actually the result of the service member in question missing the target in question. I reached this conclusion right around the first time I witnessed first hand it being used for it's intended purpose and performing well even after hearing for seemingly the majority of my life how terrible it was at stopping the enemy.
Definitely. I didn't mean for my reply to convey that M855 is great. It definitely has issues and Im glad it's been replaced. I was just saying that the issues are very overblown on the internet. I was an Army infantryman with two tours in Iraq, I still got several buddies in who are still fighting, I got a couple buddies that went Special Forces and are still fighting, I have some close friends and family members that were Marine infantryman (Iraq and Afghanistan) with combat experiences..... None of these guys complain about the effectiveness of M855. I dont buy it myself as I find M193 to be cheaper, more accurate, and known to have more consistent terminal performance.
I came to the same conclusion. Only guys in my unit to complain about the effectiveness of 5.56 had a hard time qualifying at the rifle range, yet were positive they hit the guy 200 meters downrange running at a full sprint across a narrow road with less than 2 seconds to take the shot.
Doctor Gary Roberts has probably seen / examined more firearm wounds than all of us put together.
"
About Gary Roberts
Dr. Roberts is currently on staff at a large teaching hospital and Level I Trauma center where he performs hospital dentistry and surgery. After completing his residency in 1989 while on active military duty, he studied at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory and became one of the first members of the International Wound Ballistic Association. Since then, he has been tasked with performing military, law enforcement, and privately funded independent wound ballistic testing and analysis. As a U.S. Navy Reserve officer from 1986 to 2008, he served on the Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT, as well as being a consultant to the Joint FBI-USMC munitions testing program and the TSWG MURG program. He is frequently asked to provide wound ballistic technical assistance to numerous U.S. and allied SOF units and organizations. In addition, he has been a technical advisor to the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners, as well as to a variety of Federal, State, and municipal law enforcement agencies. He has been a sworn Reserve Police Officer in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he now he serves in an LE training role.
I suggest many of the previous posters actually read the link I provided earlier.... Dr. Roberts is THE foremost authority on firearms stopping power.
"water jugs, water balloons, watermelons, wet-pack, jello, clay, mud," ... really poor testing medium... you could shoot all those with an high velocity ammo and get the same results. Good thing we aren't made of any of those.
hogs, etc., and, whole fryer chickens.... again, fryer chickens we ain't
Hogs... finally, a possibly useful suggestion.
Go ahead and shoot a hog with a FMJ... then one of the newer designed rounds next to it... look at the destruction, penetration depth, wound track... go ahead and do the test, then consider the wounds in context to a human bodies depth.
I am going to stick with my original comments .. there are far better choices for a 5.56 then FMJ bullets
If your life was on the line, I'd rather use a better bullet then rely on having to shoot twice.
Read the link above... Dr Roberts is a VERY well respected expert on 5.56 ammo ... he may be the most knowledgeable expert on the earth.
If some of you guys want to use FMJ... feel free... however, beyond a doubt, bullet technology has dramatically improved over the decades since 5.56 FMJ's and .30 cal FMJ's... producing far better wound ballistics then ANY typical combat rifle FMJ bullet
Seriously, if you want better bullet performance then a FMJ bullet can give... read the earlier link.
Dr. Roberts is THE foremost authority on firearms stopping power.
So, don't take my word on it... read it for yourselves.
And consider reading Dr. Roberts results over at https://pistol-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?19-Ammunition&s=a56ebb377663e18ca961cb234e1fce28
https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2008/Intl/Roberts.pdf
...
"water jugs, water balloons, watermelons, wet-pack, jello, clay, mud," ... really poor testing medium... you could shoot all those with an high velocity ammo and get the same results. Good thing we aren't made of any of those.
hogs, etc., and, whole fryer chickens.... again, fryer chickens we ain't
My friends who have recently come back from Afghanistan within the last few years were all using A1.
I gotta disagree with the idea that M855 just ice picks. It does have a long time to upset in certain situations, but it's not super widespread and M855 has been killing the crap out of badguys for the past 19 years. I've seen multiple guys shot with it from bad breathe distance out to a few hundred yards.
This article has some gruesome pics of what M855 will do.
https://www.shadowspear.com/2016/06...h-an-ak47-than-an-m4-contains-graphic-images/
You pump your tires up pretty hard on DocRoberts, who is an expert and credible source.
But what does he say, exactly, w/r/t 55 gr. FMJ M193 Ball ammo at > 2700 fps impact velocity?
That is your fallacy.
What if your impact velocity is below 2700fps ? Not everyone uses longer barrels... and you are proving my point... Modern designs are better performers below 2700fps.
Look at some Speer GD .223 videos... 1703fps low enough for the Gold Dot ? How well does the 55gr FMJ do at that speed ?
Show me. Tell me about how he ignores Yaw .
Wait... here is what he says..
"While these are not bad bullets, you will note that they are subject to large variations in neck length (distance the bullet penetrates before fragmenting); this variability is not desirable. In case of the short neck length, it is indeed an effective bullet."
How about ballistic gel?
I can also show you plenty of videos of better performing modern bullets....
So you think this same round, that also explodes a whole fryer chicken... won't do the same thing to a human thoracic cavity?
You said that, not me. I have repeatedly said there are better choices. More consistent choices.
If you are going to now shot someone only in the thoracic cavity... even then a more modern, consistent performing, short neck , faster fragmenting bullet would be my choice.
Troops in the field that used it - nicknamed it the "Meat Axe."
So... all 5.56 55gr FMJ ammo performs the same way ? IE , every 55gr FMJ used in 5.56 ammo fragments ? .... everytime ?
Is that why Uncle Sam has developed Mk262, Mk 318, M855A1 ?.... rather then going back to the 55gr FMJ ?
Academics - are a wonderful thing.
I couldn't agree more.
Shoot what you want.
You as well.
GR
View attachment 938680
I should have been clearer then "can" ice pick... I am saying it isn't a consistent performer.
View attachment 938678 View attachment 938679
Definitely. I didn't mean for my reply to convey that M855 is great. It definitely has issues and Im glad it's been replaced. I was just saying that the issues are very overblown on the internet. I was an Army infantryman with two tours in Iraq, I still got several buddies in who are still fighting, I got a couple buddies that went Special Forces and are still fighting, I have some close friends and family members that were Marine infantryman (Iraq and Afghanistan) with combat experiences..... None of these guys complain about the effectiveness of M855. I dont buy it myself as I find M193 to be cheaper, more accurate, and known to have more consistent terminal performance.
I came to the same conclusion. Only guys in my unit to complain about the effectiveness of 5.56 had a hard time qualifying at the rifle range, yet were positive they hit the guy 200 meters downrange running at a full sprint across a narrow road with less than 2 seconds to take the shot.
Not long after the US Army’s entry into Afghanistan, reports from the field began to surface that in close quarters engagements, some Soldiers were experiencing multiple “through-and-through” hits on an enemy combatant where the target continued to fight. Similar reports arose following the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Those reports were not always consistent – some units would report a “through-and-through” problem, while others expressed nothing but confidence in the performance of their M4 carbines or M16 rifles.
3. Field reports are accurate and can be explained by the phenomenon of bullet yaw. Shot placement aside, why is it that some Soldiers report “throughand-through” hits while others report no such problems, despite using the same weapons and ammunition? The phenomenon of bullet yaw can explain such differences in performance.
4. There are doctrinal and training techniques that can increase Soldier effectiveness. The analysis tools used in this study were used to evaluate some alternative engagement techniques. The technique of engaging CQB targets with controlled pairs – two aimed, rapid shots as described in Chapter 7 of FM 3-22.9 – was shown to be significantly better than single aimed shots (see Figure 8). While that should certainly not be surprising to those who have been using this technique for some time, we now know why. Not only are two hits better than one, but controlled pairs help to average out striking yaw; on average, the Soldier is more likely to see a hit where the bullet’s yaw behavior works in his favor
The specific values of the chart are not meaningful; what is meaningful is the fact that all of the rounds act in the same band of performance. Interestingly, the one 7.62mm round that received the full evaluation, the M80 fired from the M14 rifle, performed in the same band of performance, which would indicate that for M80 ammunition at least there appears to be no benefit to the larger caliber at close quarters range.
If your life was on the line, I'd rather use a better bullet then rely on having to shoot twice.
https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2008/Intl/Roberts.pdf