AR Sponsor
Posted: 10/19/2013 9:39:23 PM EDT
|
I stumbled on this informative power point presentation. It's a comparison & contrast of M855 & 7.62 ball vs M855A1.
http://www.aschq.army.mil/ac/aais/ioc/LCAAP/Industry_Day/634272332137343750.pdf 1.I know M855 is available. But does anyone know if M855A1 available to the civilian market? 2. Do you know of anything else like it? 3. Where can it be found? |
|
Quoted:
I stumbled on this informative power point presentation. It's a comparison & contrast of M855 & 7.62 ball vs M855A1. http://www.aschq.army.mil/ac/aais/ioc/LCAAP/Industry_Day/634272332137343750.pdf 1. I know M855 is available. But does anyone know if M855A1 available to the civilian market? 2. Do you know of anything else like it? 3. Where can it be found? |
|
nice powerpoint with some good results. However, I have read about barrel wear with this round. I googled it, but there is a lot of info out there and I couldn't pick just one link. I would suggest googling the subject.
The Marines have the MK318. It uses a 62 grain bullet based on the TBBC that has similar flight ballistics to the m855, has great barrier penetration and other terminal ballistics without any barrel issues. Why does the army need another one especially with the barrel wear issues. |
|
I like the mk318 - look at gel shots vs gd dot and tap.
It functions very well with m4 ramps, its 5.56 pressures, sealed And I just keep some now as my go to, and shoot m855 or ss109 My point of impact is very close, it rare to have a go to round Same grain and 5.56 not .223 There is also that FBI 62gr otm that not bad |
|
I also like Mk318 but it seems to have disappeared since Newtown.
It expands right now and I have shot several coyotes with it despite its very modest accuracy (2.5-3 inches @ 100 yds). Biggest asset of the M855A1 is that the steel penetrator weight has more than doubles from M855. It appears to be at least as heavy as the 5.45x39 mild steel core (25 grains). the not yaw dependant claim has puzzled me. Either the copper core is sintered and it fragments into small peices or the core, jacket and penetrator all go their separate ways. Dont know why the gelatin shots were pulled. this is not a classified ctg. |
|
M855A1 is "Meh". Think of it as a solution in search of a problem. Notice that it doesn't use lead - one of the principal things they wanted to accomplish is to go to "green" ammo, because lead is evil. They also improved hard target penetration - all important things for the top brass at the army, but not necessarily good things for the average Joe. In addition to spending lots of money on development, they eventually just STOLE the design from a commercial manufacturer in Florida, meaning that you and I got to pay the copyright infringement lawsuit awards on top of the huge development costs. In comparison, Mk318 developed by the Marine Corps is better and barely cost anything to develop. |
|
Who was the original patent holder in Florida?
I saw a somewhat similar design many years ago at the USMC show in Washington DC. French company made 0.50 caliber with 500 grain steel penetrator double normal core weight). Exposed steel ogive like M855A1. But no lead behind core. . |
|
Quoted:
M855A1 is "Meh". Think of it as a solution in search of a problem. Notice that it doesn't use lead - one of the principal things they wanted to accomplish is to go to "green" ammo, because lead is evil. They also improved hard target penetration - all important things for the top brass at the army, but not necessarily good things for the average Joe. In addition to spending lots of money on development, they eventually just STOLE the design from a commercial manufacturer in Florida, meaning that you and I got to pay the copyright infringement lawsuit awards on top of the huge development costs. In comparison, Mk318 developed by the Marine Corps is better and barely cost anything to develop. And MK 318 doesn't completely deadline barrels in 2K rounds like EPR does...except EPR will come with new gauges that magically have larger margins for what is acceptible barrel wear 
|
|
Quoted:
Mk318 is an interim solution until M855A1's problems are fixed Why not simply adopt the FBI version of MK 318 that is bonded and call it good? Is it because it is an expanding bullet? The Bureau spent serious money and time getting an optimal bullet and it flat out works. Functionally though, it looks a lot like bonded MK 318 with some tweaks. |
|
And MK 318 doesn't completely deadline barrels in 2K rounds like EPR does...except EPR will come with new gauges that magically have larger margins for what is acceptible barrel wear Sorry if it's a dumb ass question, but why the M855A1 EPR supposedly wear the barrel faster than M855? Is exposed steel penetrator damage the M4 feed ramps? Slightly more pressure than M855? ??? |
|
I believe the bullet used in FBI contract is the Nosler 64 grain bonded solid base. Totally different bullet than the Mk318.
It is s short bullet for a solid base with a fairly large diameter meplat, designed to stabilize in 1-12 twist and 10.5 inch SBR's. Only tihng they have in common is the solid base. The Mk318 intentionally has a very abrupt transition from the jacket to the solid base so it will blow off when it expands. This would never be used in an expanding bullet that was designed to retain weight, or for the jacket to support the core. they both are designed to do what they do very well. But bonding a Mk318 would be a failure. Here is aNosler from my tests at 2750 fps. 
And expanded. (The orange disc is the frontal area of bullet punched out from a Home Depot nylon bucket filled with water). 
And the Mk318 next to Mk319 for comparison expanded. 
Two very different but effective approches to a barrier blind 556! I suspect the Mk318 is more appropriate for military use if for no other reason it has a slightly higher BC. Bonding softens the jacket and would probably result in more "leading" of the bore, esp on full auto, so USMC made right choice. A cup and draw or impact extruded fragmenting bullet can be made alot faster than a bonded bullet. Cheaper too. |
|
Quoted:
And MK 318 doesn't completely deadline barrels in 2K rounds like EPR does...except EPR will come with new gauges that magically have larger margins for what is acceptible barrel wear The problems we saw in testing was not excess barrel wear (although it was greater than M855) but jacket fouling to the point it caused groups to an average of 9.87 inches after 4800 rounds. Post de-coppering those groups dropped to and average of 3.96 inches with the same weapons. |
|
Quoted:
I believe the bullet used in FBI contract is the Nosler 64 grain bonded solid base. Totally different bullet than the Mk318. It is s short bullet for a solid base with a fairly large diameter meplat, designed to stabilize in 1-12 twist and 10.5 inch SBR's. Only tihng they have in common is the solid base. The Mk318 intentionally has a very abrupt transition from the jacket to the solid base so it will blow off when it expands. This would never be used in an expanding bullet that was designed to retain weight, or for the jacket to support the core. they both are designed to do what they do very well. But bonding a Mk318 would be a failure. Here is aNosler from my tests at 2750 fps. <a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/atillman/media/22364grainnoslersolidbasebondeddustscrathches_zps01ac2861.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/atillman/22364grainnoslersolidbasebondeddustscrathches_zps01ac2861.jpg</a> And expanded. (The orange disc is the frontal area of bullet punched out from a Home Depot nylon bucket filled with water). <a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/atillman/media/Bullets/CLoseupexpandedwdisc_zps0a078227.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/atillman/Bullets/CLoseupexpandedwdisc_zps0a078227.jpg</a> And the Mk318 next to Mk318 for comparison expanded. <a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/atillman/media/Mk318319recoveredLarge.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/atillman/Mk318319recoveredLarge.jpg</a> Two very different but effective aproches to a barrier blind 556! I suspect the Mk318 is more appropriate for military use if for no other reason it has a slightly higher BC. Bonding softens the jacket and would probably result in more "leading" of the bore, esp on full auto, so USMC made right choice. A cup and draw or impact extruded fragmenting bullet can be made alot faster than a bonded bullet. Cheaper too. I could be totally off as I haven't followed it in a year or two, but I thought the FBI 5.56 ammo had two rounds, a training round and a duty load. The duty load was functionally based on a Trophy Bonded Bear Claw type bullet with a solid copper shank and a lead core up front. MK 318 was similar but unbonded. Is that incorrect? |
|
Quoted:
Doctor Roberts: "On unobstructed shots, the 75 gr OTM and Mk318 Mod0 will generally offer similar tissue disruption, however the base of the SOST round will likely exit the suspect while the 75 gr OTM does not." Quoted:
Quoted:
How does Mk318 compare to Mk262? Doctor Roberts: "On unobstructed shots, the 75 gr OTM and Mk318 Mod0 will generally offer similar tissue disruption, however the base of the SOST round will likely exit the suspect while the 75 gr OTM does not." Mk262 is 77 gr. Mk318 is optimized for "barriers", while retaining similar ballistics to M855. Mk262 is optimized for long range accuracy, while still loading to mag length, 5.56 pressures, reliability with FA use, blah, blah. Two very different rounds, for different purposes. |
|
Quoted:
M855A1 is "Meh". Think of it as a solution in search of a problem. Notice that it doesn't use lead - one of the principal things they wanted to accomplish is to go to "green" ammo, because lead is evil. They also improved hard target penetration - all important things for the top brass at the army, but not necessarily good things for the average Joe. In addition to spending lots of money on development, they eventually just STOLE the design from a commercial manufacturer in Florida, meaning that you and I got to pay the copyright infringement lawsuit awards on top of the huge development costs. In comparison, Mk318 developed by the Marine Corps is better and barely cost anything to develop. Terminal performance seemed to be better then any other round I have seen. |
|
Quoted:
Mk262 is 77 gr. Mk318 is optimized for "barriers", while retaining similar ballistics to M855. Mk262 is optimized for long range accuracy, while still loading to mag length, 5.56 pressures, reliability with FA use, blah, blah. Two very different rounds, for different purposes. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How does Mk318 compare to Mk262? Doctor Roberts: "On unobstructed shots, the 75 gr OTM and Mk318 Mod0 will generally offer similar tissue disruption, however the base of the SOST round will likely exit the suspect while the 75 gr OTM does not." Mk262 is 77 gr. Mk318 is optimized for "barriers", while retaining similar ballistics to M855. Mk262 is optimized for long range accuracy, while still loading to mag length, 5.56 pressures, reliability with FA use, blah, blah. Two very different rounds, for different purposes. The OTMs are normally considered to offer the most tissue disruption of 223/556 rounds. Dr. Roberts noted that the 318 gives similar performance which is high praise while still maintaining that deep penetrating copper rear. These partition style bullets give a nice balance. They have better barrier penetration than OTMs with similar unobstructed performance while giving greater tissue disruption than bonded SPs on soft targets with less through barriers. Kind of smack in the middle. It would be nice if someone could get some Mk318 pulls, sort them by weight, and load them to match quality to see the results. |
|
I think the RFP for FBI service ammo determined that two manufacturers met their criteria.
The 5.56 mm Federal 62 gr Trophy Bonded Bear Claw (TBBC) bonded JSP load is XM556FBIT3. The 5.56 mm Winchester 64 gr solid base bonded JSP is Q3313 on stripper clips/RA556B in 20 rd boxes. The 64 grain used by Winchester is the Nosler. WW and Nosler have a long history of colaboration. I am getting around 2900 fps from a 16 inch barrel with several different powders. Have not accuracy checked them yet to standardize a large run for myself. FBI also had RFP for training ammo and lead free ammo. The bonded bullets are referred to as service ammo. |
|
Quoted:
I think the RFP for FBI service ammo determined that two manufacturers met their criteria. The 5.56 mm Federal 62 gr Trophy Bonded Bear Claw (TBBC) bonded JSP load is XM556FBIT3. The 5.56 mm Winchester 64 gr solid base bonded JSP is Q3313 on stripper clips/RA556B in 20 rd boxes. The 64 grain used by Winchester is the Nosler. WW and Nosler have a long history of colaboration. I am getting around 2900 fps from a 16 inch barrel with several different powders. Have not accuracy checked them yet to standardize a large run for myself. FBI also had RFP for training ammo and lead free ammo. The bonded bullets are referred to as service ammo. Thanks for the info, much appreciated. I haven't looked at it in a while. |
|
Quoted: Yes and the gel test was very surprising. Maybe too much penetration but the temporary wound cavity was impressive. Quoted: Quoted: M855A1? Don't you have gelatin tests? Yes and the gel test was very surprising. Maybe too much penetration but the temporary wound cavity was impressive. Post it up! |
|
Quoted:
Post it up! Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
M855A1? Don't you have gelatin tests? Yes and the gel test was very surprising. Maybe too much penetration but the temporary wound cavity was impressive. Post it up! Follow Me |
|
Quoted:
That is utter and complete BS, and you can tell Edward I said that. There is NOTHING classified about you shooting gel with ammo and posting up the pictures. Who in the hell claimed otherwise? A guy at ATK said people in a 5 sided building came to him and were worried about the info being out there. He contacted my mainly worried that I was one of the guys who was stealing crates of this stuff, which apparently they have been having issues with. |
|
Quoted: A guy at ATK said people in a 5 sided building came to him and were worried about the info being out there. He contacted my mainly worried that I was one of the guys who was stealing crates of this stuff, which apparently they have been having issues with. Quoted: Quoted: That is utter and complete BS, and you can tell Edward I said that. There is NOTHING classified about you shooting gel with ammo and posting up the pictures. Who in the hell claimed otherwise? A guy at ATK said people in a 5 sided building came to him and were worried about the info being out there. He contacted my mainly worried that I was one of the guys who was stealing crates of this stuff, which apparently they have been having issues with. If you didn't, then what's the worry? That just irks the crap out of me. "I'm sorry - you can't post pictures of these tires because some of these tires have been stolen from us recently". There is absolutely no way in hell that they can legally suppress that information. It's not like you signed an NDA. |
|
I dont know, the guy I talked to was worried about stolen ammo. He was especially concerned about their new ammo popping up in something like Aurora. Once he learned I had 2 rounds he wrapped up his "incident report", He also talked to the arfcommer who supplied me with the ammo and was happy to learn it was just an incident of someone taking a stripper clip home from the army range. I talked to him about the ammo some more and he said they they actually were suprised with the performance of the round too and thats why they got all hush hush about it. There USED to be a government power point out there with gel pictures, but it was scrubbed from the internet too.
But he did specifically ask me where else I had posted it. |
|
Check out this not very flattering article on M855A1
Guns and Ammo M855A1 article |
|
Definition
(17)(A) The term “ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm. (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 Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device. What does all that mean? A few things to take note of is that the classification as “armor piercing” is for bullets only, not the complete cartridge. Despite the mention of handgun caliber above, you can take that to mean that it’s a round that has been made as a handgun caliber at some point. The bullet (projectile) must also have a core made entirely out of the metals listed above, or be a full jacketed bullet with a jacket weighing more than 25% of its overall weight. This means that the SS109/M855 bullets wouldn’t be covered, as their cores are partly steel, and partly lead. Lead isn’t listed in the metals above. Furthermore, as you’ll see in the list below, the ATF has specifically stated that the SS109/M855 bullets are exempted from AP status. ATF AP Classified Rounds All KTW, ARCANE, and THV ammo Czech made 9mm Para. with steel core German made 9mm Para. with steel core MSC .25 ACP with brass bullet BLACK STEEL armor and metal piercing ammunition 7.62mm NATO AP and SLAP PMC ULTRAMAG with brass bullet (not copper) OMNISHOCK .38 Special with steel core 7.62×39 ammo with steel core bullets ATF Exempted Rounds 5.56 SS109 and M855 NATO rounds, with steel penetrator tip. .30-06 M2 AP ammo By the gov definition the m-855a1 is considered a armor piercing round, no company can manufacture or import this round for sale on the civilian market. So i wouldnt hold my breath waiting for this ammo to show up for sale anytime soon, the ATF would have to add m855a1 to the exempt ammo list and i dont see that happening anytime soon especially since the gov i consume the new ammo as fast as companies can produce it, its not like the ammo manufactures are sitting around with all this extra ammo pleading the gov to change the law so they can unload it on the civilian market. Its worth noting that as a civilian you are allowed, to possess and shoot armor piercing rounds, a grandfather clause that keeps people from getting in trouble incase they have old ammo that is AP and they dont know it i suppose. |
|
If the givernment wanted to make an expensive bullet, using all copper and steel would be close to the top of my list.
Question for those of you who have used M855A1 ammo or disected the latest version. Why have a copper jacket and then insert a copper slug behind the steel ogive penetrator? Why not impact extrude the solid base and swage the penetrator in place on top of it at same time as finishing the final sizing on bearing surface? Cost is no object, right? I cant figure out why copper fouling would be such a problem. the copper core would not compress ike lead so I can see it having more pressure, and it will be longer than an M855. Does anyone know how long it is??? Maybe as long as an M856 tracer, I would guess! Copper fouling, well I guess they need relief grooves like the North Fork pioneered and immitated by Barnes and the Mk318 solid base bullets. |
|
Wonder of the DOD came down on Guns And Ammo too.  |
|
Quoted:
Wonder of the DOD came down on Guns And Ammo too.
Quoted:
Wonder of the DOD came down on Guns And Ammo too.
What you find happening now is the government is attempting to "classify" things to prevent info from getting out but as one of the guys who runs the information security program told me, you cannot classify things to prevent embarrassment. If you look at most of the documents you will see the stamp For Official Use Only or "FOUO" on them. FOUO is a caveat and not a classification and the reason they do it is by FOIA laws prevents those documents from being subject to the FOIA; however there are only 9 reasons something could legitimately be FOUU and almost every FOUO document I have seen does really doesn't fall into one of those categories but instead a back handed way to prevent disclosure. I know numerous people, myself included, that have been investigated for discussing items on FOUO documents just because the document was marked FOUO and not because it actually was. |
|
Quoted:
What you find happening now is the government is attempting to "classify" things to prevent info from getting out but as one of the guys who runs the information security program told me, you cannot classify things to prevent embarrassment. If you look at most of the documents you will see the stamp For Official Use Only or "FOUO" on them. FOUO is a caveat and not a classification and the reason they do it is by FOIA laws prevents those documents from being subject to the FOIA; however there are only 9 reasons something could legitimately be FOUU and almost every FOUO document I have seen does really doesn't fall into one of those categories but instead a back handed way to prevent disclosure. I know numerous people, myself included, that have been investigated for discussing items on FOUO documents just because the document was marked FOUO and not because it actually was. Quoted:
Quoted:
Wonder of the DOD came down on Guns And Ammo too.
What you find happening now is the government is attempting to "classify" things to prevent info from getting out but as one of the guys who runs the information security program told me, you cannot classify things to prevent embarrassment. If you look at most of the documents you will see the stamp For Official Use Only or "FOUO" on them. FOUO is a caveat and not a classification and the reason they do it is by FOIA laws prevents those documents from being subject to the FOIA; however there are only 9 reasons something could legitimately be FOUU and almost every FOUO document I have seen does really doesn't fall into one of those categories but instead a back handed way to prevent disclosure. I know numerous people, myself included, that have been investigated for discussing items on FOUO documents just because the document was marked FOUO and not because it actually was. That isn't just "a rule," it's in DoD and all the services regulations, implementing Federal Law (I think it's part of the National Security Act of 1947, but it's also probably been enhanced by other statutes). Simply put, you can't use classification to hide mistakes, hide malfeasance, hide "trade secrets" or patents, or to hide problems. Developing a kick-ass new round that drops Haji like a rock even behind a windshield does not count as a defense secret; I'd think it would be something to publish loudly and clearly. "Insurgents can no longer depend on the kind of cover they've used in the past, now that the new M???? round is in the hands of the troops." This apparent misuse of classification, or the apparent implication of classification, is exactly why most of the public doesn't trust ANYTHING related to the government. MORE openness, including publication of an "oops, we spent a lot of money on a project that didn't quite pay off...sorry" event might turn that around to some extent. Wikipedia has actually very accurate information on what kind of information fits into which category of classification. There is also this handy, official booklet that provides insight into who can originally classify data, and how it must be marked, including the "declassify on" date, which is required by law and implemented by Executive Orders. Only a very few, very high-level people are authorized to originally classify any information, they have to specify exactly why it is being classified, and they essentially acknowledge that it is a FELONY to misuse classification for purposes other than what it is intended for. The problem comes when Joe Mid-Level decides that since he's used a paragraph (even though that paragraph was Unclassified) from a Secret document, that HIS document is now Secret. Makes him feel big, or important, or something, but it also shows that he's either untrained, poorly trained, or shifty, because derivative classification has to follow the same rules as original classification. So Joe might just feel all warm and fuzzy for creating his "derivative Secret" memo, but he may also be breaking the law. His manager/supervisor/commander needs to be involved in making sure that he knows WTF he's doing, but that doesn't happen nearly enough. |
|
Infinite Grim,
Do you remember Olive North in 1985 when he testified in front of congress about the iran-contra affair but he was not allowed to use his slide presentation? He described what was in each picture instead. for those of us who never saw the orignal photos, why dont you describe for us what the gelatin shots looked like? |
| It looked like the gel-shots for MK318 SOST, except the frags extended about double the distance, and instead of the rear 1/2 penetrating "through", that would be the "penetrator" center/nose of the A1. It was most impressive. Like a giant ballistic-tip with a "penetrator" element. Very short "neck" of the cavity, like <1". |
|
Do you think the arrow head penetrator tore up the copper core like an old Remington Bronze Tip?
Did the copper core stay in one peice, or was it sintered? Do they leave enough space around the copper jacket and penetrator that it peels back like a HP? I just dont see how it expands? Which of above??? PS What was velocity? |
| For what it's worth, a good friend of mine, who I consider to be a reliable source of such info, actually used some of that M855A1 stuff overseas. He said it was pretty good stuff. They hadn't adopted it before I got out, so I have yet to actually see any of it myself. From my experience, it certainly can't be much worse than M855. I'd be more interested to see how it does in comparison to the M995 ammo more than anything. |
| How about tests into living humans determined to kill you? Second hand knowledge here, but real world... People I know who have actually used this round on people, not simulant, had very good results with this ammunition. I've also heard this from a doc I know who also has some good friends in a local unit that tends to deploy a lot and shoot a lot of people. |
AR Sponsor