User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/5/2018 8:19:05 AM EDT
[#1]
Good write-up. Were you anywhere near RC East in 2012?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2018 8:31:07 AM EDT
[#2]
Nice article, thanks.
Do you think a standard M16A2 &/or a standard M16A4 would be more accurate? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2018 8:36:43 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nice article, thanks. Do you think a standard M16A2 &/or a standard M16A4 would be more accurate? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2018 9:05:53 AM EDT
[#4]
I took two teams of ROTC Cadets to the 2018 All-Army Championships at Benning. We practiced quite a bit with M16A2s (irons) and M4s (ACOGs) with M855A1.
It seems to shoot tighter than 855 but I have no instrumented data. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2018 9:21:25 AM EDT
[#5]
Thanks.
Did they shoot any Mk 262? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2018 9:54:25 AM EDT
[#6]
Good write up. I would like to see 10 round groups at 100 yards or 5 and 5 overlaid and evaluated with software, but thats me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2018 10:51:42 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nice article, thanks. Do you think a standard M16A2 &/or a standard M16A4 would be more accurate? Well looking at the reports, the improved accuracy out of the longer Barrel was because it had a 1 in 8 twist. It seems 1/8 was optimal for M855a1 So if its a standard M16A2 barrel with 1/7 I would not expect much difference |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2018 10:56:05 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good write up. I would like to see 10 round groups at 100 yards or 5 and 5 overlaid and evaluated with software, but thats me. The software aspect I don't know I felt pretty confident in shooting my groups and I could call my shots. That is probably one reason why you don't see any military software data on m855a1 because it is only marginally better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2018 11:05:01 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agree ,10 round group perhaps would be more ideal..however I only have so much M855A1. The software aspect I don't know I felt pretty confident in shooting my groups and I could call my shots. That is probably one reason why you don't see any military software data on m855a1 because it is only marginally better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2018 12:01:07 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks. Did they shoot any Mk 262? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2018 6:32:18 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks. Did they shoot any Mk 262? The beauty of M855A1 is the individual bullet seems to be seated close to true, coaxial with the jacket (as opposed to a penetrator pressed-in from the base). 
The 855A1 bullet is very close to the same length as a Sierra 77-grain Match King, with a nice boat-tail -- and a very nice ballistic coefficient from the muzzle while it's hauling butt -- but, because it's lighter (the same as M193) it sheds velocity faster than the heavier Match King and is slower at 500. It'll still kill a target dead as fried chicken, but you may have to take a few more shots to get a hit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2018 6:33:44 PM EDT
[#12]
Didn't realize you were SF. Very cool.
Thanks for the write up! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2018 2:43:16 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well looking at the reports, the improved accuracy out of the longer Barrel was because it had a 1 in 8 twist. It seems 1/8 was optimal for M855a1 So if its a standard M16A2 barrel with 1/7 I would not expect much difference |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2018 1:57:08 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I shoot MK262 all the time...depending on AR15 barrel i get between .77 to 1.5 MOA Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Thanks. Did they shoot any Mk 262? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2018 2:21:34 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What type Tracer, if any, did you use downrange, with M855A1 &/or Mk262? (One exception my first tour in Iraq) I did the old Vietnam trick of last 3 rounds in every mag tracer to signal I was about to run out. Found out not really needed La-5 and other modern lasers have made tracers obsolete. For the M4. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2018 2:33:12 PM EDT
[#16]
Murphy:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2018 3:11:50 PM EDT
[#17]
Excellent report.
I'm seeing guys with M855A1 and M995 lately. Where are these trucks that they keep falling off from??? I'd like to buy both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2018 3:19:07 PM EDT
[#18]
Nice. Y'all should send in your redacted DD214s and get your tags here.
I make no pretensions of being a great shot, nor do I spend much disposable income on ammo. I can barely see the 300m pop ups. Last year was my 1st time to qual on the pop up range w/ an M4A1 & M855A1, and I got my 1st First Time Go on the pop-up range. I'm quite pleased w/ the combo of Aimpoint, M4A1, & M855A1. I should probably spring for a magnifier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2018 4:50:16 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Excellent report. I'm seeing guys with M855A1 and M995 lately. Where are these trucks that they keep falling off from??? I'd like to buy both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2018 6:55:26 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can buy M855A1 online... google it for sale 
I'm not seeing it anywhere else but Gunbroker. Or projectiles at the minimum. Any online vendors because it looks to be shady at the moment if gunbroker is all we got and I don't need CID asking me where I got it from. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2018 5:34:04 AM EDT
[#21]
Would you please comment on magazines used, both on deployment, & now?
Thank you. Steel on Target!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2018 7:29:15 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would you please comment on magazines used, both on deployment, & now? Thank you. Steel on Target!!! Accessories-for-military-combat-applications-the-competition-to-combat-crossover-part II Carbine-aftermarket-accessories-for-military-combat-applications-the-competition-to-combat-crossover-part-III |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2018 2:27:29 PM EDT
[#23]
1.) I've never seen M995 or even M993 for sale publicly outside of 1 or 2 rounds on collectors forums. If someone can show otherwise that would be interesting.
2.) Anyone know the G1 or G7 BC of the M855A1? I've read it was supposed to be the same as the old M855, but they made it a touch (.02 or so) higher. However now I'm reading it might be higher than that and BDCs meant for M855 are off? Can anyone confirm? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2018 7:39:05 AM EDT
[#24]
I've seen M855A1 on gunbroker fairly often. It usually goes for about $1.25 per round. When I've seen it, it's usually in 200 or 500 rd lots.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2018 12:14:27 PM EDT
[#25]
Yeah M855A1 is easy enough to find now. I'm talking about M995 or M993 or any of their tugsten cored brothers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2018 1:22:27 PM EDT
[#26]
If it's only on gunbroker then it's not easy to find and I want nothing of it
If it ain't on the sites online tlike SGammo or on the shelves at even the big box or mom an pop brick and mortar stores, then it's not easy to find. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2018 8:09:42 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not this year. The beauty of M855A1 is the individual bullet seems to be seated close to true, coaxial with the jacket (as opposed to a penetrator pressed-in from the base). https://www.americanrifleman.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/compare.jpg The 855A1 bullet is very close to the same length as a Sierra 77-grain Match King, with a nice boat-tail -- and a very nice ballistic coefficient from the muzzle while it's hauling butt -- but, because it's lighter (the same as M193) it sheds velocity faster than the heavier Match King and is slower at 500. It'll still kill a target dead as fried chicken, but you may have to take a few more shots to get a hit. The A1 bullet seems to have more "core" than the Match King, and they tinkered with a variety of different materials for the part behind the steel tip (bismuth/tin, copper), but it seems that the idea was to make a unified core and then form the jacket around it. That should do two things: it should make the innards of the bullet essentially identical every time, and (very importantly) the jacket is filled from the front, so the base of the bullet is drastically more uniform than the 855's "FMJ-type" construction. Both should contribute quite a bit to better accuracy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2018 8:30:08 AM EDT
[#28]
I'm jelly. Best I could get from a verified 1.25 moa gun with me behind it was an average of 4.5moa if I recall. These are 10, 10 shot groups averaged.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2018 9:02:29 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
2.) Anyone know the G1 or G7 BC of the M855A1? I've read it was supposed to be the same as the old M855, but they made it a touch (.02 or so) higher. However now I'm reading it might be higher than that and BDCs meant for M855 are off? Can anyone confirm? It should probably match the elevation turret on A2/A4 fixed and detachable carry handles, MATECH elevation levers, and ACOG reticles to at least 300. I'd have to go back through our individual shooter's data cards to verify. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2018 9:33:03 AM EDT
[#30]
Good article. My take away is author and equipment are capable of
1.5 MOA with MK 262 2(ish) MOA with M855A1 2.5 (ish) MOA with M855 To be honest... meh. It's better. But it's still ball ammo peformance - at 3x the price and accelerated gun wear potential. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2018 9:37:51 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good article. My take away is author and equipment are capable of 1.5 MOA with MK 262 2(ish) MOA with M855A1 2.5 (ish) MOA with M855 To be honest... meh. It's better. But it's still ball ammo peformance - at 3x the price and accelerated gun wear potential. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2018 12:16:01 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Apropos of nothing, again the A1 is very close to a Sierra 77 Match King in length and profile, while weighing 55 grains. However the math voodoo comes out I'd guess it's really good to 300-400 yards, then starts to decline as the bullet sheds velocity. Still not bad at 500.
It should probably match the elevation turret on A2/A4 fixed and detachable carry handles, MATECH elevation levers, and ACOG reticles to at least 300. I'd have to go back through our individual shooter's data cards to verify. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2018 4:15:31 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good article. My take away is author and equipment are capable of 1.5 MOA with MK 262 2(ish) MOA with M855A1 2.5 (ish) MOA with M855 To be honest... meh. It's better. But it's still ball ammo peformance - at 3x the price and accelerated gun wear potential. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2018 11:20:08 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, it's still considered ball ammo so there's that. Also, one of requirements was that it ballistically match M855 so that the BDC on the ACOG could still be used. You also left out the exponentially better terminal performance I did mention in beginning of article performance terminal wise already pretty well documented As far as matching up with M855 there already numerous articles debunking the Army's claim it fly's the same as M855 (Its very very close but not the same as M855) First the military said no need to re-zero then they confirmed you have to between M855 and M855A1 I zeroed the optic for this article with the M855A1 During shooting I noticed about a 1MOA difference in elevation, between the two Its close enough for me that I would feel fine not rezeroing it, if I zeroed with one downrange then used another. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2018 3:17:16 PM EDT
[#35]
The point of the M855A1 (aside from being lead free) was to have accuracy at least as good as M855 while substantially improving terminal performance. All of the testing reports I've seen support this, though "it's still just ball ammo." Don't expect sub-MOA out of any ball product, but given the bullet's construction, there are fewer variable factors so it should be capable of better accuracy just from that.
So 4MOA or so at least is what I'd expect. Unfortunately every large-scale fielded ball round has had specs that aren't immediately comparable to the previous round. The accuracy spec for M193 is: "3.5 Accuracy. -The average of the mean radii of all targets of the sample cartridges, fired at 200 yards, shall not exceed 2.0 inches." (MIL-C-9963F) Now for M855: "3.11.1 Accuracy. No individual target shall exhibit horizontal or vertical linear standard deviations greater than 7.8 inches at 600 yards." There's also a standard for mean point of impact... On its face, this looks like they're saying M855 can have a slightly poorer accuracy, but not really because they throw in standard deviation versus simply seeing the mean radius of the target hits. (MIL-C-63989A) For M855A1, "Accuracy testing shows that 95% of rounds will hit will hit a eight by eight inch target at a range of 600 yards" The spec, MIL-DTL-32338, has a distribution restriction (D) and isn't likely going to be easily found online. I've hit a number of brick walls trying to run this down, and I'm tired of the bruises. Some places even say that the standard is classified, but not WHAT classification it has, so I doubt it's even CONFIDENTIAL. It should indeed be NOFORN, and I can see keeping it FOUO and limiting its distribution, I just want to see the data the Army is basing "it has way better accuracy than M855" on. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2018 3:44:25 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
? Thought M855A1 bullets weigh 62 grains? 55? I think the older bismuth A1 bullet was 55. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2018 5:22:28 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're right. Just pulled and weighed one -- 62 grains. I think the older bismuth A1 bullet was 55. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2018 6:30:35 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For M855A1, "Accuracy testing shows that 95% of rounds will hit will hit a eight by eight inch target at a range of 600 yards" The spec, MIL-DTL-32338, has a distribution restriction (D) and isn't likely going to be easily found online. I've hit a number of brick walls trying to run this down, and I'm tired of the bruises. Some places even say that the standard is classified, but not WHAT classification it has, so I doubt it's even CONFIDENTIAL. It should indeed be NOFORN, and I can see keeping it FOUO and limiting its distribution, I just want to see the data the Army is basing "it has way better accuracy than M855" on. I do not think there will be any published data on the true accuracy of the round by the Army, hence my desire to try and debunk the claims made in the few reports that do exist. With my own testing. It did perform better than I expected, and I think better than M855 accuracy wise. But as I also pointed out in my article, it seems the Army is content with 5MOA barrels for the M4 So regardless of ammo, one get screwed over with a lousy performing carbine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2018 7:29:50 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The point of the M855A1 (aside from being lead free) was to have accuracy at least as good as M855 while substantially improving terminal performance. All of the testing reports I've seen support this, So I googled it. The first article I could find mentioned and showed ballistic gelatin tests. And they concluded the M855 had the better terminal ballistics. So... I don't know. Never really looked before... I'm guessing there are lots of other studies proving M855A1 has better terminal performance after all? That would not have been my first guess tho. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2018 8:28:04 PM EDT
[#40]
M855A1 fragments more reliably and at much reduced velocity when compares to M855. It also penetrates better across the board.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2018 10:11:29 PM EDT
[#41]
@Stukas87
What model VCOG do you have that was pictured? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Left out on purpose because Its a article solely on accuracy, not over all performance. I did mention in beginning of article performance terminal wise already pretty well documented As far as matching up with M855 there already numerous articles debunking the Army's claim it fly's the same as M855 (Its very very close but not the same as M855) First the military said no need to re-zero then they confirmed you have to between M855 and M855A1 I zeroed the optic for this article with the M855A1 During shooting I noticed about a 1MOA difference in elevation, between the two Its close enough for me that I would feel fine not rezeroing it, if I zeroed with one downrange then used another. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Well, it's still considered ball ammo so there's that. Also, one of requirements was that it ballistically match M855 so that the BDC on the ACOG could still be used. You also left out the exponentially better terminal performance I did mention in beginning of article performance terminal wise already pretty well documented As far as matching up with M855 there already numerous articles debunking the Army's claim it fly's the same as M855 (Its very very close but not the same as M855) First the military said no need to re-zero then they confirmed you have to between M855 and M855A1 I zeroed the optic for this article with the M855A1 During shooting I noticed about a 1MOA difference in elevation, between the two Its close enough for me that I would feel fine not rezeroing it, if I zeroed with one downrange then used another. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2018 12:03:33 AM EDT
[#42]
55gr BDC with Horeshoe
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2018 7:18:23 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was unaware. I have to say, without researching it, I assumed the lead base multi-component tearable jacked at cannular bulle (M855), was the more likely to yaw and fragment and do more of the terminal explody shock things 223 was invented for, than a harder copper/steel bullet with no thin jacket - but I never looked So I googled it. The first article I could find mentioned and showed ballistic gelatin tests. And they concluded the M855 had the better terminal ballistics. So... I don't know. Never really looked before... I'm guessing there are lots of other studies proving M855A1 has better terminal performance after all? That would not have been my first guess tho. But when this bullet transitions to a different medium (i.e. penetrating a human body), that more rearward CM also causes the bullet to tumble more than an M195 bullet - though the M195 will fragment better. The Soviets took this a big step farther with the 7N6 bullet for 5.45x39. There is an air space at the nose of that bullet, moving its CM MUCH farther back, and causing it to violently tumble, as well as break up because there’s no support inside the nose. There’s some support for declaring this particular bullet a violation of the Hague 1899 convention (Section IV-3, banning bullets “which can expand or easily change their shape in the human body”). Interestingly, Hague 1899 was initiated by Tsar Nicholas II of Russia... For whatever reason, the United States did not ratify this section, but we still comply with it, though the Soviets and their post-Soviet Russian counterparts apparently don’t give a rat’s skinny tail about it... Anyway, getting back to the M855A1, the construction of this bullet doesn’t really lend itself to fragmentation, but since its structure seems to similarly move its center of mass rearward, it should also both yaw less and tumble well in the human body. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2018 8:00:31 PM EDT
[#44]
Anyone tested m80a1? I heard it has accuracy issues in 240ls past 800
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2018 2:39:24 PM EDT
[#45]
Whats up with the called pulled shot in the article? There is no such thing because all shots count if someone wants to see how well THEY can shoot a gun/ammo combo, IMO. Reshoot if you screw up that bad, or at least reshoot that shot. And when that NON sub MOA, .8 MOA group had 4 shots on paper, why not shoot another round or at least measure the closest that shot could have been and still not struck cardboard... which makes the group over MOA at a minimum if a 6th shot on paper, results in a group size under that number. But thanks for the data, looks like both are in that 2-4 MOA arena that all ball ammo is in regardless.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2018 3:29:44 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not this year. The beauty of M855A1 is the individual bullet seems to be seated close to true, coaxial with the jacket (as opposed to a penetrator pressed-in from the base). https://www.americanrifleman.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/compare.jpg The 855A1 bullet is very close to the same length as a Sierra 77-grain Match King, with a nice boat-tail -- and a very nice ballistic coefficient from the muzzle while it's hauling butt -- but, because it's lighter (the same as M193) it sheds velocity faster than the heavier Match King and is slower at 500. It'll still kill a target dead as fried chicken, but you may have to take a few more shots to get a hit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Thanks. Did they shoot any Mk 262? The beauty of M855A1 is the individual bullet seems to be seated close to true, coaxial with the jacket (as opposed to a penetrator pressed-in from the base). https://www.americanrifleman.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/compare.jpg The 855A1 bullet is very close to the same length as a Sierra 77-grain Match King, with a nice boat-tail -- and a very nice ballistic coefficient from the muzzle while it's hauling butt -- but, because it's lighter (the same as M193) it sheds velocity faster than the heavier Match King and is slower at 500. It'll still kill a target dead as fried chicken, but you may have to take a few more shots to get a hit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2018 8:50:45 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whats up with the called pulled shot in the article? There is no such thing because all shots count if someone wants to see how well THEY can shoot a gun/ammo combo, IMO. Reshoot if you screw up that bad, or at least reshoot that shot. And when that NON sub MOA, .8 MOA group had 4 shots on paper, why not shoot another round or at least measure the closest that shot could have been and still not struck cardboard... which makes the group over MOA at a minimum if a 6th shot on paper, results in a group size under that number. But thanks for the data, looks like both are in that 2-4 MOA arena that all ball ammo is in regardless. at that range. Plus ammo really tight I only had so much to work with ...Now 4 round group (the miss at 500), I had no idea it was a miss until I went down range. My POA felt pretty solid, I'm pretty confident it went just over left or right shoulder so would have been still around the same MOA My main goal was to get MOA data on the M855A1. I shot the M855 just to compare, but its not really needed. The groups I shot with the M855A1 seemed to show the capability of the round. Would I have liked to do 10 round groups out to 600? Yes, That would be ideal. But seeing how there is no published MOA data on M855A1 until this article.. I think its a good start. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
