AR Sponsor
Posted: 7/5/2012 5:52:03 AM EDT
M855A1 headstamp LC/09, steel penetrator over a solid copper bottom. Its next to a M855A1 Prototype with the tin and bismuth bottom that was posted about a month ago. wolfgang
|
|
Originally Posted By mdrums:
Originally Posted By nickforney:
I enjoy see your pictures when you do this. too bad this is a garbage round. Why do you cal M855 a garbage round? Not trying to argue, just want your opinion or facts...seriously honest question...thanks!  It cost a ridiculous amount of money to be a green round which was never proven to be in need. It shows some minor improvements in barrier penetration but is not capable of clearing sapi plates or most armor types. It does not carry the same poi/poa as 855 which it claimed to do. What it basically came down to was the army spent a very large amount of money to create a greener round. The round has shown accuracy potential but MIL-C-71186 gives a standard for the colt m4a1 for accuracy at the 5.5 extreme spread at 100 yards. So getting 2 inch groups is great now as it is BAM produced ammo what happens when it hits the SCAMP production? Other ammos have shown break down in accuracy standards due to a ramp up in production since 9/11. I say it is a garbage round because I look at what America needs rounds for. Putting holes in bodies. Taliban today generally go body armor and helmet free of course there are exceptions but why not provide one of the rounds already in the inventory eg. MK 318 or MK 262 both costing less to the US government in cost per round not even beginning to scratch the surface of the R and D required to produced this new round. If we were to have to fight a force using body armor and current era helmets we would need to revert back to the M995 line which the new 855A1 does not replace as an armor piercing round. Most info on this round hits us guys on the ground by word of mouth and most of it is dead wrong. I am no subject matter expert on ballistics and will not claim to be but I have done the reading on the round I have shot several thousand rounds of it. My thought is that it would have been better suited to have spent the ridiculous amount of money spent on research and development on buying ammo already in the system and training on it. |
Bang...hit Bang....hit Bang.......bang.......bang..bang.bang.bang
|
Originally Posted By wolfganggross:
M855A1 headstamp LC/09, steel penetrator over a solid copper bottom. Its next to a M855A1 Prototype with the tin and bismuth bottom that was posted about a month ago. wolfgang http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv360/wolfganggross/cutaway18%2063012/cutaway1863012012.jpg http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv360/wolfganggross/cutaway18%2063012/cutaway1863012018.jpg http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv360/wolfganggross/cutaway18%2063012/cutaway1863012015.jpg So what kind of cutting equipment was used to do the cutaway photos? Loved the smooth finish! 
|
|
Originally Posted By undercoverwookie:
Nice cutaway, always interesting to see. I always thought the problem with A1 was it was overcharged and harder on the weapons. Besides the costs of R&D. Hopefully we get some range time with it soon. That is an issue I didn't even get to. Increased pressure to 63,000 over the 55,000 range will likely show more wear on our rifles with the same use. There are a lot of guys who will mention that in the list of issues but our rifles are 'reset' pretty regularly so I don't honestly know how many rounds of this rifles can take before needing reset. Mind you these are problems for the military shooter whom this round was designed for. In terms of normal shooting its an expensive green round that shoots somewhere around 2moa. |
Bang...hit Bang....hit Bang.......bang.......bang..bang.bang.bang
|
Originally Posted By buckwheat762:
thank you for posting this, i have 2 yes a whopping 2 of these bullets that i found in a 5000ct of pulled 62gr bullets. i did not know what the hell they were and thought they were fucked up defect rounds or something. Get them from hitech? nickforney spelled it out right. Throwing money at a bad idea. Thanks wolfgang. |
|
Originally Posted By Stump70:
Originally Posted By buckwheat762:
thank you for posting this, i have 2 yes a whopping 2 of these bullets that i found in a 5000ct of pulled 62gr bullets. i did not know what the hell they were and thought they were fucked up defect rounds or something. Get them from hitech? nickforney spelled it out right. Throwing money at a bad idea. Thanks wolfgang. no i picked up a preban colt for 750 and traded it for 5000 rounds worth of ammo components (powder, cases, bullets) to a guy at a gun show. i probably should have kept the rifle, but i did not have the cash and i wanted the ammo to save on shipping. he is based out of tennessee i believe. he does not use a computer and did not have a card. can't remember his name, i have had them for over a year now. |
|
Originally Posted By mdrums:
Originally Posted By nickforney:
I enjoy see your pictures when you do this. too bad this is a garbage round. Why do you cal M855 a garbage round? Not trying to argue, just want your opinion or facts...seriously honest question...thanks! He didn't call M855 a garbage round. He was referring to the M855A1 that is the subject of the thread. M855/M855A1 Comparison |
|
Originally Posted By nickforney:
I enjoy see your pictures when you do this. too bad this is a garbage round. Friends in the polish army who talked to american soldiers said that they(us soldiers) liked the round, and that its effective. Much more accurate with much better penetration of barriers and less muzzle flash. Dont judge the m855a1 because some internet experts say it is crap because they think it is bad but have never tested it in labolatory condition nor in the field shooting live targets... Give it a chance. |
|
Here is a link to the best open source article I've seen detailing the myriad problems associated with M855A1: http://www.gunsandammo.com/201...oldiers-and-marines/. Note that the article author is not a random internet wannabe or pseudo-expert; he is a decorated, combat experienced military veteran, as well as one of the most respected LE officers on the west coast.
More info here: http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/21520819863/m/79720610963 and http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=101005. |
|
Originally Posted By Likon:
Originally Posted By nickforney:
I enjoy see your pictures when you do this. too bad this is a garbage round. Friends in the polish army who talked to american soldiers said that they(us soldiers) liked the round, and that its effective. Much more accurate with much better penetration of barriers and less muzzle flash. Dont judge the m855a1 because some internet experts say it is crap because they think it is bad but have never tested it in labolatory condition nor in the field shooting live targets... Give it a chance. So you heard from a friend in the polish army that american soldier liked it and are telling and ask me to not judge the round based off of what some internet expert has to say? As I said I have fired thousands of these rounds and read everything I can get my hands on. Many soldiers have no idea what the magazine in the rifle is fed with or what it is capable of. I feel it is a better round than 855 BUT it is far more expensive and the reason it is more expensive is to fix a nonexistent problem in my book. At this time our job is to put rounds into generally non armored combatants. The inventory has rounds that are better suited for that. If the job came to fighting a group with armor this round is also not the right one for that. I have seen the lab results. I have looked at the cost of the round compared to other rounds that are in the inventory. Again I will say. Cool picture and process...too bad it is a garbage round. |
Bang...hit Bang....hit Bang.......bang.......bang..bang.bang.bang
|
What I don't understand is why they used copper for the rear section, when copper is the most expensive material commonly used in bullet making, whereas steel is not only "green", but also dirt cheap, harder, and insignificantly lighter. (.283lb/cubic inch vs .323lb/cubic inch)
Would it have made too much sense to make both core sections out of steel? They're obviously not concerned about whether or not it's civilian legal, as there's no way in hell BATFE would OK the current M855A1 design as non-AP |
|
Originally Posted By Jolkm:
What I don't understand is why they used copper for the rear section, when copper is the most expensive material commonly used in bullet making, whereas steel is not only "green", but also dirt cheap, harder, and insignificantly lighter. (.283lb/cubic inch vs .323lb/cubic inch) Would it have made too much sense to make both core sections out of steel? They're obviously not concerned about whether or not it's civilian legal, as there's no way in hell BATFE would OK the current M855A1 design as non-AP I would assume that the copper replaced the lead for economic "green" reasons, but also helps with momentum for the steel penetrator while at the same time, expanding during impact to accomplish the most damage. If the entire core was steel, then there wouldn't be that much wounding capabilities as it would probably be a clean in-out wound. Kinda like a smaller version of the .30 cal M2 AP |
Uncle
Sam's
Misguided
Children
Sam's
Misguided
Children
|
Originally Posted By dangerdan:
Originally Posted By Jolkm:
What I don't understand is why they used copper for the rear section, when copper is the most expensive material commonly used in bullet making, whereas steel is not only "green", but also dirt cheap, harder, and insignificantly lighter. (.283lb/cubic inch vs .323lb/cubic inch) Would it have made too much sense to make both core sections out of steel? They're obviously not concerned about whether or not it's civilian legal, as there's no way in hell BATFE would OK the current M855A1 design as non-AP I would assume that the copper replaced the lead for economic "green" reasons, but also helps with momentum for the steel penetrator while at the same time, expanding during impact to accomplish the most damage. If the entire core was steel, then there wouldn't be that much wounding capabilities as it would probably be a clean in-out wound. Kinda like a smaller version of the .30 cal M2 AP Actually the copper is still too hard to expand, and the round does not expand, but instead it fragments, much like M193&M855 do with sufficient velocity, except the only reason M855A1 fragments is because having to separate cores instead of one, it's sort of "pre-fragmented" so the jacket is the only thing that has to break when the round tumbles, whereas the M2 AP you mention has a single solid core, which was not the design I was suggesting, but rather keeping a two piece core design, just making both pieces out of steel. As far as the bullets ability to retain momentum, (the ballistic coefficient) that is influenced my two things; mass/weight, and drag. steel is slightly lighter than copper for a given volume, so the core could be just as heavy if it was slightly larger, which within the confines of the diameter of the bullet, can only mean longer. Thats why the M855A1 bullet is a lot longer than the M855/SS109, because they replaced a lead core with copper which is much lighter, so it had to be longer/larger to reach the desired weight, but steel wouldn't make a huge difference compared to copper. |
|
Originally Posted By Jolkm:
What I don't understand is why they used copper for the rear section, when copper is the most expensive material commonly used in bullet making, whereas steel is not only "green", but also dirt cheap, harder, and insignificantly lighter. (.283lb/cubic inch vs .323lb/cubic inch) Would it have made too much sense to make both core sections out of steel? They're obviously not concerned about whether or not it's civilian legal, as there's no way in hell BATFE would OK the current M855A1 design as non-AP .223 is exempt from national AP regulation. Specifically, bullets of that diameter or smaller, are exempt. not sure why, but remember reading that directly in the regulation. |
|
Originally Posted By lazyengineer:
Originally Posted By Jolkm:
What I don't understand is why they used copper for the rear section, when copper is the most expensive material commonly used in bullet making, whereas steel is not only "green", but also dirt cheap, harder, and insignificantly lighter. (.283lb/cubic inch vs .323lb/cubic inch) Would it have made too much sense to make both core sections out of steel? They're obviously not concerned about whether or not it's civilian legal, as there's no way in hell BATFE would OK the current M855A1 design as non-AP .223 is exempt from national AP regulation. Specifically, bullets of that diameter or smaller, are exempt. not sure why, but remember reading that directly in the regulation. Are you referencing .223 and/or 5.56? Because everywhere else states that M995 is illegal in civilian hands. I've only seen M995 once...and I found it on the ground at some range outside of Camp Fallujah. |
Uncle
Sam's
Misguided
Children
Sam's
Misguided
Children
|
Originally Posted By lazyengineer:
Originally Posted By Jolkm:
What I don't understand is why they used copper for the rear section, when copper is the most expensive material commonly used in bullet making, whereas steel is not only "green", but also dirt cheap, harder, and insignificantly lighter. (.283lb/cubic inch vs .323lb/cubic inch) Would it have made too much sense to make both core sections out of steel? They're obviously not concerned about whether or not it's civilian legal, as there's no way in hell BATFE would OK the current M855A1 design as non-AP .223 is exempt from national AP regulation. Specifically, bullets of that diameter or smaller, are exempt. not sure why, but remember reading that directly in the regulation. SS109 (M855) is specifically exempted, but I'm not aware of a blanket rule that anything under .223 is exempt. .223/5.56 bullets are .224 in diameter anyway. |
I have to return some videos.
|
The M855A1 is important because so many residents of Gettysburg, Verdun, Leningrad, name the battlefield, they all must be dying off in droves daily due to lead poisoning. Yes?
Of course not. Elemental lead is so abundant in the earth's crust that we can afford to, gasp!, make cheap bullets from the stuff. I suppose it's fine that the Army's developmental and procurement people are all tree-huggers now. Doesn't mean they know anything about what true lead-poisoning is all about. |
Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations
|
Originally Posted By Eric802:
Originally Posted By lazyengineer:
Originally Posted By Jolkm:
What I don't understand is why they used copper for the rear section, when copper is the most expensive material commonly used in bullet making, whereas steel is not only "green", but also dirt cheap, harder, and insignificantly lighter. (.283lb/cubic inch vs .323lb/cubic inch) Would it have made too much sense to make both core sections out of steel? They're obviously not concerned about whether or not it's civilian legal, as there's no way in hell BATFE would OK the current M855A1 design as non-AP .223 is exempt from national AP regulation. Specifically, bullets of that diameter or smaller, are exempt. not sure why, but remember reading that directly in the regulation. SS109 (M855) is specifically exempted, but I'm not aware of a blanket rule that anything under .223 is exempt. .223/5.56 bullets are .224 in diameter anyway. There is an exemption that bullets must be larger than .22 caliber, but only for part of the law. http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIG1.html The definition of AP ammo is at 18 USC sec. 921(a)(17): "(B) The term `armor piercing ammunition' means- (i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or (ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile. (C) The term `armor piercing ammunition' does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Secretary finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Secretary finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device." So, the .22 exemption only applies to jackets that might be armor piercing. The "core" definition could be interesting, but isn't the .223 AP is a dual core? In any event, it's only illegal to Make or Import AP ammo. You can own, sell, shoot, and buy it. So if you can find it, you can buy it. |
AR Sponsor