I am pretty sure that Dr Roberts has some laminated glass penetration data for both rounds he could share.  I think that would help clear things up if we addressed data instead of blabbing so much and speking in generalities.

Do you have any test data you could add to the discussion Dr Roberts?

M855 and Mk262 both give about 7-8" of penetration after first passing through an automobile front windshield when shot at CQB distances--this is substandard terminal performance.  Obviously this can produce lethal effects, even with relatively poor terminal performance--but then again, I can win a poker hand with a pair of 5's, but I feel a whole lot more confident of success if I go in with a royal flush...  So far NO 5.56 mm ammunition has been developed that can maximize both soft tissue damage and intermediate barrier penetration--you need to jump up to 6.5/6.8 mm if you want that capability in an M4 size platform.  Also, keep in mind what Mk262 was designed for, precision intermediate to long range fire from the Mk12; as such, Mk262 is NOT the best choice for carbines (M4, Mk18, HK416, etc...), although it is certainly better than M855, since M855 was designed as MG ammo and is clearly best suited for use in the M249/Mk46.

I would consider getting some of this 77gr stuff if my 16" 1:9 could stabilize it

Quoted: Is Mk262 Mod1 better than M855? Yes, by all means for general anti-personnel targets. I'm probably just reading into this wrong, but this seem to imply that you thought MK262 was better ONLY for Anti-Personnel.

 

From a design and ballistic test result stand point it is clear that this is the role the round fits as neither round is designed/intended to shoot through auto glass.

Whereas, DevL and I had both stated that we believed it had an edge over M855 for glass penetration due to better retained mass, IE; heavier bullet.  Which is why we keep concluding that MK262 would be better overall, and there then wouldn't really be a need to load MK262 and M855 as you are suggesting.

I as well stated this could be likely/possible, and even pointed to DevL's post, but again you seem to have an issue of reading comprehension.

Either way, I've always been an M855 apologist for the most part.  I believe it's proven to work.  However, my stance is still that MK262 has the edge in all areas.  If it is the case that people can't get it than fine, M855 is just dandy.  KevinB just claimed he got a KIA with a 10.5" barrel at 400 yards with it.

Once again, you're trying to focus on one round solution and get into a typical BARF.com hard headed pissing match about small minutia by reading your own implications into clearly written statements.

If you cannot tell I prefer the Mk262 then I won't try and beat an already dead issue.

Given current logistics and the ability of soldiers to consistently maintain it their best solution may be a combo of both Mk262 & M855 in their magazines.



Did you not say this?  Why would you need to load both if MK262 is better?

Yes I do have a thick head.  But I get the feeling I'm not the only one.

OK, I think I get it, you are saying they should use both because they're not going to have just one.  OK I admit it.  I got a thick head.

I guess we agree that MK262 would be the best for GP, if you had to choose between MK262 and M855.  Alot of us would just like to see more of it made so we can get some surplus easier / more readily available.

I'm sorry you think this place is Barfy. I for one think it's pretty cool when guys like the doc show up.  Sorry that I ruin it for you.

It's a good thing no one in this thread is actually in COMBAT.

Shit!  You'd never get any fighting done with all this bickering about ammo.

I think M855 is a piss poor round.  But If I was issued it, I'd take it, shut my mouth, and get my job done.

Sorry Section1_Operations, I think I took what you said and mixed it in with what some of the others were saying.  My bad.  Don't hate me.


Mark, we all know you don't like MK262.  I'd use whatever too.  You'd be proud, my shtf stash is Q3131A !!!!!!!!

Quoted: Sorry Section1_Operations, I think I took what you said and mixed it in with what some of the others were saying. My bad. Don't hate me.

That's why this place is BARF.com because it takes 10x the necessary post to say something that’s already succinctly written.

Quoted: Given current logistics and the ability of soldiers to consistently maintain it their best solution may be a combo of both Mk262 & M855 in their magazines. Did you not say this?  Why would you need to load both if MK262 is better?

Basically because lacking M995 the M855 is closer to M995 in design than to Mk262 bullet construction.

Yes I do have a thick head.  But I get the feeling I'm not the only one.

Patients shouldn’t be confused with being slow on the up take

OK, I think I get it, you are saying they should use both because they're not going to have just one.  OK I admit it.  I got a thick head. I guess we agree that MK262 would be the best for GP, if you had to choose between MK262 and M855.  A lot of us would just like to see more of it made so we can get some surplus easier / more readily available. I'm sorry you think this place is Barfy. I for one think it's pretty cool when guys like the doc show up.  Sorry that I ruin it for you.

There was a post a month or two ago that contained links to a .mil slide presentation that related to the barrier penetration of various small arms rounds.

Quoted: There was a post a month or two ago that contained links to a .mil slide presentation that related to the barrier penetration of various small arms rounds.

The NDIA 17th MAY'06 presentation on - Effects of Small Caliber Munitions Through Intermediate Barriers?

Quoted: Quoted: Sorry Section1_Operations, I think I took what you said and mixed it in with what some of the others were saying. My bad. Don't hate me. That's why this place is BARF.com because it takes 10x the necessary post to say something that’s already succinctly written. Quoted: Given current logistics and the ability of soldiers to consistently maintain it their best solution may be a combo of both Mk262 & M855 in their magazines. Did you not say this?  Why would you need to load both if MK262 is better? Basically because lacking M995 the M855 is closer to M995 in design than to Mk262 bullet construction. Yes I do have a thick head.  But I get the feeling I'm not the only one. Patients shouldn’t be confused with being slow on the up take OK, I think I get it, you are saying they should use both because they're not going to have just one.  OK I admit it.  I got a thick head. I guess we agree that MK262 would be the best for GP, if you had to choose between MK262 and M855.  A lot of us would just like to see more of it made so we can get some surplus easier / more readily available. I'm sorry you think this place is Barfy. I for one think it's pretty cool when guys like the doc show up.  Sorry that I ruin it for you.

Well, I'm still a little confused, what is it that M855 can do that MK262 can't,  even though the construction is different?  

Loading Mk262 and M855 into the same magazine is NOT a recommended technique.  Pick one or the other...

If you want AP capability, then use an AP round like M995; M855 is NOT an AP projectile.

If you want to bust glass get a bonded round or better yet a larger caliber.

Quoted: Loading Mk262 and M855 into the same magazine is NOT a recommended technique.  Pick one or the other... If you want AP capability, then use an AP round like M995; M855 is NOT an AP projectile. If you want to bust glass get a bonded round or better yet a larger caliber.

Quoted: Well, I'm still a little confused, what is it that M855 can do that MK262 can't, even though the construction is different?

DocGKR has it correct and I can see in the way my sentence is worded it may be construed in an ambiguous manor – that’s my fault.

Take and use what's available in the supply chain.  If it's both then take both into the AO and on a mission - loaded in separate magazines – if you’re so inclined to have and utilize both.

Why waste a long range OTM on barriers given the similar performance of the two in that role?

Quoted: It's a good thing no one in this thread is actually in COMBAT. Shit!  You'd never get any fighting done with all this bickering about ammo. I think M855 is a piss poor round.  But If I was issued it, I'd take it, shut my mouth, and get my job done.

no offense but that make zero sense, we are not in combat and if we were I'm sure we aren't going to be getting ourselves killed because we don't want to use a certain ammo.

We are on a discussion board so that is exactly what we are doing, discussing

So , how far away were they when they fired these rounds?

I wonder how M193 rounds would have done in this comparison.

I know this is just a discussion forum and everyone is just having fun discussing the topic.  But in all seriousness, if you ever have to shoot someone through a car windshield, please take this advice:

SCENERIO #1:
    If someone is attempting to run you over with a car. What do you do?

ANSWER:
    GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY!!!!  There is nothing good that will come out of you trying to shoot and kill the bad guy.  Even if you have the Federal 62 Gr Bonded Ammo and you take a shot and goes perfectly through the windshield and hits the bad guy in the head and kills him, who is driving the car now?  You just created an unguided rocket.  And most likely it will be coming towards you or it can veer to one side and hit innocent people.

SCENERIO #2:
    If you have no other choice but to shoot the bad guy through the windshield, what is the best thing to do?

ANSWER:
    With any ammo, the windshield can and will do funny things to bullets, unless you have a .50 cal.  The best thing to do is take multiple shots at the bad guy.  The first shot is generally good enough to soften up the windshield and the rest of the shots should go through without too much loss of velocity or change of direction.

Now back to the regularly scheduled discussion.

You guys realize the cars in Iraq don't use safety glass don't you?  I have seen quite a few dead Iraqis from 5.56 going through the windows.  And M855 was the ammo being used, there has been some M955 delinked and issued to increase car body penetration, but against the glass, the M855 round works well because the glass is different than what you find in the US.  

Quoted: Quoted: Loading Mk262 and M855 into the same magazine is NOT a recommended technique.  Pick one or the other... If you want AP capability, then use an AP round like M995; M855 is NOT an AP projectile. If you want to bust glass get a bonded round or better yet a larger caliber. Quoted: Well, I'm still a little confused, what is it that M855 can do that MK262 can't, even though the construction is different? DocGKR has it correct and I can see in the way my sentence is worded it may be construed in an ambiguous manor – that’s my fault. Take and use what's available in the supply chain.  If it's both then take both into the AO and on a mission - loaded in separate magazines – if you’re so inclined to have and utilize both. Why waste a long range OTM on barriers given the similar performance of the two in that role?

Because it has better wounding potential when shooting at soft targets. And I would imagine alot of the shooting is such.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Loading Mk262 and M855 into the same magazine is NOT a recommended technique.  Pick one or the other... If you want AP capability, then use an AP round like M995; M855 is NOT an AP projectile. If you want to bust glass get a bonded round or better yet a larger caliber. Quoted: Well, I'm still a little confused, what is it that M855 can do that MK262 can't, even though the construction is different? DocGKR has it correct and I can see in the way my sentence is worded it may be construed in an ambiguous manor – that’s my fault. Take and use what's available in the supply chain.  If it's both then take both into the AO and on a mission - loaded in separate magazines – if you’re so inclined to have and utilize both. Why waste a long range OTM on barriers given the similar performance of the two in that role? Because it has better wounding potential when shooting at soft targets. And I would imagine alot of the shooting is such.

Ah, yeah we've already established that as a fact but this topic was focused on the question of targets that were not soft i.e. behind cover or a barrier.

Neither Mk262 nor M855 offer any advantage in this scenario so the point is why waste good long-range ammo in a scenario where M855 will get the job done, and you don’t have to waste your limited supply of Mk262 when M855 is sufficient.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Loading Mk262 and M855 into the same magazine is NOT a recommended technique.  Pick one or the other... If you want AP capability, then use an AP round like M995; M855 is NOT an AP projectile. If you want to bust glass get a bonded round or better yet a larger caliber. Quoted: Well, I'm still a little confused, what is it that M855 can do that MK262 can't, even though the construction is different? DocGKR has it correct and I can see in the way my sentence is worded it may be construed in an ambiguous manor – that’s my fault. Take and use what's available in the supply chain.  If it's both then take both into the AO and on a mission - loaded in separate magazines – if you’re so inclined to have and utilize both. Why waste a long range OTM on barriers given the similar performance of the two in that role? Because it has better wounding potential when shooting at soft targets. And I would imagine alot of the shooting is such.   Ah, yeah we've already established that as a fact but this topic was focused on the question of targets that were not soft i.e. behind cover or a barrier. Neither Mk262 nor M855 offer any advantage in this scenario so the point is why waste good long-range ammo in a scenario where M855 will get the job done, and you don’t have to waste your limited supply of Mk262 when M855 is sufficient.

We are probably just looking at this differently from different operational viewpoints.  

For example, if some soldiers are going out on patrol, how would you know if you are going to only engage a hard target, or a soft target?

If you are posted at a roadblock / stop, I could see that the likelihood of car shooting would probably be greatened, depending on the duty I guess.  So yeah I could see it there, to not "waste" Mk262. But I see pictures of not only cars but people walking through this type of situation.  I guess it really depends on the situation.   I just don't know how you would know for sure which kind of target you'd be shooting at.  That's why I'd prefer Mk262 in all cases since it performs as well on hard targets.  I understand that it might not be as available as M855.  I'm just saying I wish it was for yous guys.

I think if I knew I would always be shooting at cars, I'd want an M14.

Out of idle curiosity, how does M193 stack up in this debate?

Abysmally!