spinning tops!?

i'll take mk262 for $700 alex

I really prefer to have m193 than m855 to begin with, they had it right the first time. If they wanted better preformance at longer range, a 62gr lead core would have done nicely over the SS109 bullet/m855 round.

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.

They claim it will penetrate 3/8" steel 200m farther then M855 will, and will be around 1.25-1.5MOA at 600 yards, impressive, but they are using customized propellent from Saint Mark's Powder.

The first sentence on page 12 needs a correction.

What all soldiers need to believe when using this round, especially enemy combatants.

Maybe is fragments more consistetly.

That wouldn't be at all surprising, but it may be that they truly think that M855A1 is the better choice. IIRC, the Army has stated that they want a general purpose round for general issue. The Mk318 is a special purpose, limited issue round.

Personally, I think the bigger issue is that we've got two branches, doing the same general mission, spending millions of dollars and coming up with different results.  For the sake of argument, lets say the M855A1 is a superior round.  Why hasn't it then become the standard round throughout the services?

If you're referring to the Army and Marines, your statement is incorrect. The USMC originally planned to field M855A1, and only acquired Mk318 after becoming fed up with repeated delays in getting M855A1 to work acceptably. Also, M855A1 and Mk318 were not, strictly speaking, developed for the same mission.

IIRC, Mk318 is intended (by the USMC) only for combat use in carbines, with standard Ball ammo continuing to be employed for combat use in LMGs and for training with both carbines and LMGs.

In contrast, M855A1 is intended for both combat and training purposes, in both carbines and LMGs.

Patience, grasshopper. Phasing in M855A1 and phasing out M855 takes time. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen. Barring the unexpected, of course.

Wonder what will happen first?  This round as the standard issue for all services....or the war ending?

That is a nice sentiment; too bad M855A1 STILL not appear available or certified for use in Army belt fed LMG's, yet Mk318 Mod0 works just fine in the USMC M27 IAR...

I think m855a1 is just a way of spending more tax payer money on ammunition. It doesn't matter what you put in a 5.56mm you can't make it 7.62x51mm.

searcher M855a1 on gun broker and didn't find any for sale. What gives. I can buy ss190 but not M855a1

Sounds a bit like the Army adopting UCP instead of MARPAT too, doesn't it?

In both cases here, the Marines came up with an excellent solution, yet the Army, wanting to be "unique", went their own way and spent millions to field a product that is inferior. Where's the logic here?

The Mk318 is intended to be used as our combat round for non-linked applications (we use more A4s than M4s).  The only thing keeping Mk318 from being used in SAWs is it not being linked and no ballistically similar tracer, so if it were you  would end up being like AP SAW ammo in which you have a mix of AP and M856 tracers.

The Marine Corps released a message about the middle of this year stating current on hand lots of M855A1 are not suitable for combat operations, there was no explanation given in the message.

You are not going to want it, it costs more per round to produce than the current round.

Proof the .gov does keep an eye on arfcom

Thanks for the assessment DocGR. I appreciate your posts.

I bought 500 pulled M855 bullets off of Gunbroker 2 weeks ago, and one of them was the M855A1, I'm curious to how it got mixed in there.

PICTURES NOW

http://www.libertyammunition.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap8O9ArPjWg

ar-jedi

What he said.... PICS

It would be nice to see some gel tests, reports and results.   Where are the gel tests on the Mk318?

Thanks.  Also, I noticed that the primer on the M855A1 has changed from 3 leg to 4 leg anvil.  What is that about?

[ETA] Nevermind.  I misread the slide.  It says 4 prong stake.  I have seen European primer stake like that but not US so far.

yup, marines went foreward, army went backwards.

I'll be back in town on thursday, currently gone for work, I'll post the pics in the evening as soon as I can, it is only one projectile, but as soon as I saw it, I recognized it from the release pics on Military.com

that shut them up...

looks like one to me..."spinning top" and all.....

weird

When are you going to shoot it?

Holy Thread resurrection!

OK, I can kind of see at least one way that the new projectile could be inherently more accurate: it has a closed-base jacket, which provides for a much more consistent bullet base and eliminates the possibility of gasses perturbing the bullet's flight as it leaves the muzzle.  Just like OTM bullets...  It's also apparently something like an 1/8" longer than the SS109 bullets pictured, which now potentially brings up how well this bullet is stabilized by 1:7 rifling (probably quite well, but I'm just sayin').  

Also, if "loose penetrator tips" are OK, then what is the effect of the energy lost to internal friction inside the bullet?  From a theoretical perspective, if the tip can spin inside the jacket, as the rest of the bullet is "spun up" by the rifling, then a loose tip could rob the overall projectile of the angular momentum imparted by the rifling, which could mean all sorts of problems with individual projectiles depending on how loose the tip might be.  Which is completely contrary to the whole "more consistent" concept.

Not to mention the wear and tear it causes on weapons. Significantly shorter barrel life on a gun that uncle sugar don’t own, no thank you. I’ll stick with MK262 or MK318.