User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/26/2021 11:51:43 AM EDT
[#1]
Military. FBI and other fed agencies usually use bonded soft point rounds.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2021 4:03:55 PM EDT
[#2]
Military maybe contractor overseas. Law enforcement uses/issues some sort of soft point/expanding bullet as they are looking for expansion of the bullet to transfer its energy to the person.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2021 4:06:39 PM EDT
[#3]
Primarily the army uses it. Some gets filtered down in country to other branches and subcontractors. I've heard about some being given to stateside contractors for training before deployment overseas.
But for the most part, it's just available to the military. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2021 4:33:03 PM EDT
[#4]
Fed boys use XM223SP1 and XM556FBIT3.
M855A1 is a great fkn round when you arent buying it from greymarket scalpers, especially these days. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2021 6:58:48 PM EDT
[#5]
does anyone load 855A1 ?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2021 9:57:28 AM EDT
[#6]
Not interested given M855a1's reputation for premature wearing out of barrels and breaking bolts. I know reducing barrel life 40-50% matter little if you don't shoot a lot, but that wear has got to be affecting accuracy long before hand.
Given the stunningly effective terminal ballistics of the current crop of bonded soft point bullets like Gold Dot, Fusion and TBBC as well as solid copper hollow points like Barnes Triple Shock, I simply don't see a need for the current mil loading. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2021 9:43:40 AM EDT
[#7]
Barnes xxx is cool
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2021 10:08:27 AM EDT
[#8]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2021 10:15:15 AM EDT
[#9]
Topic Moved
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2021 9:33:14 PM EDT
[#10]
A1 is great, but as previously mentioned, it beats up guns faster. If barrier penetration is enough, its a decent option. But if not, any soft point will be fine. 55gr FMJ isn't bad, but it'll need to be pushed fast enough to fragment
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2021 11:08:03 PM EDT
[#11]
Our local PD uses plain old 55gr .223 FMJ
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2021 10:40:42 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Our local PD uses plain old 55gr .223 FMJ Your local PD needs better ammo lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2021 11:06:01 AM EDT
[#13]
The US Army's Fiscal Year 2020 and 2021 Budgets show the Army is only buying M855A1 Ball now -- no more M193 or M855, so anyone the Army supports with ammo (our own troops, allies drawing from our stocks, or contractors provided government ammo) will generally be issued A1 unless they are rotating first-in / first-out of remaining M855.
The 82nd's powerpoint slide shows purported "Feed ramp damage" using photos a member here or on TOS produced using typewriter white-out to highlight feed ramps. The Army using them as proof of weapons damage is pure, unadulterated horse-shit like Democrat-antifa press. Another photo shows feed damage where A1 steel points are hitting the bottom of a rifle barrel extension in an M4 receiver. That is so blatantly obvious a lie I'm sure that guy's pants caught fire and gave him at least second-degree burns. M855A1 is pretty good out to 300 Meters from M4A1s. At 400 it starts getting blown around a bit if there are any winds. At 500 it's a challenge keeping all rounds from an M4 within an E-type silhouette using iron sights. Anyone who parrots "M855A1 wrecks GI guns" should be beaten with a dirty diaper. Twice. Then be forced to eat it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2021 11:19:20 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Our local PD uses plain old 55gr .223 FMJ 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2021 11:20:22 AM EDT
[#15]
There are still HUUUUUGE stocks of green tip. After the shortage during the GWOT, some planners and procurement folks went full Stack it Deep and filled warehouses with it. Shame that DOD can’t surplus it out...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2021 11:25:59 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: M855A1 is pretty good out to 300 Meters from M4A1s. At 400 it starts getting blown around a bit if there are any winds. At 500 it's a challenge keeping all rounds from an M4 within an E-type silhouette using iron sights. Is that due to the round or due to the abilities of the shooters? Isn't pretty much all shooting in the military now done with an ACOG or other optic? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2021 12:18:03 PM EDT
[#17]
I tested it for BC, velocity and accuracy for an optics company a while back. I guess they were fixin'a make a BDC reticle just for it. I put it through a 9-twist 18" M4 pattern AR-15 and a 7-twist 26" barreled bolt gun. The stuff I tested must have been from an early lot because the examples I saw later on were much higher production quality.
Of the stuff I tested on: The odd. I never saw velocities above 2770fps from either platform. That was surprising. The fact that velocities between the two were within 100fps of each other was really surprising. Added barrel length just didn't really help after 18". The good Shots against AR-500 at 100m did nick the steel. Function was perfectly reliable. The bad. The ammo itself looked like it was made by a blind kid in Pakistan. There was asphalt sealant squeeze-out on some of the necks and bullets, case mouths looked like they were crimped with pliers. Some bullets looked like the penetrator tip wasn't properly crimped in. Minimum group sizes at 100m were over 4". All in all it was ammo that I'd not expect to be produced for our military. Later on I got to play with more at an event at Ft. Bragg. That ammo looked wonderful. I grouped it at 1.5MOA rested from a 2x4 through a Cobalt Kinetics AR. I didn't get to velocity test it or BC test it that day. One thing we did definitely see was shooting M855A1 at steel from well under 100yrds is very dangerous. At least 3 SF guys had to trot back to the band-aid pickup to get forehead wounds from ricochets treated. All of those injuries were very minor, luckily. The shooter in each case was usually within 30 of the target steel when they took the bouncer to the bean. BC on these is surprisingly high. IIRC I measured it at .350-.370 based on MV and resulting 600m drops. That' amazing for a sub-70gr .223 bullet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2021 9:38:38 PM EDT
[#18]
Hello all,
Finally decided to join AR15.com to BS and buy and sell some stuff. The shorter the barrel, the better the performance of M855A1. Most of the wear to the feed ramp is eliminated by using the correct military magazine (blue follower). No noticeable wear after 500 rounds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2021 1:05:35 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hello all, Finally decided to join AR15.com to BS and buy and sell some stuff. The shorter the barrel, the better the performance of M855A1. Most of the wear to the feed ramp is eliminated by using the correct military magazine (blue follower). No noticeable wear after 500 rounds. Um, are you sure about that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2021 9:48:44 AM EDT
[#20]
I'm not sure why anyone would be super impressed by A1. It is a polished turd. The entire history of the program would be laughable...a "non toxic" requirement that didn't exist...theft of Patented tech with a lawsuit lost by the government...bullets that were not "temp stable" at normal daily temperature...millions lost on failed good idea fairy nonsense like magic gunppowder that doesn't get hot...and a bullet that is so awesome that it had to be forced onto the Marine Corps by Congress against the advice of their SMEs and with understanding that it would destroy their HKs and require millions is replacement parts/barrels.
That's not even addressing the program management team that said they didn't care if it broke the rifles it was used in because that wasn't their program and the broken rifles weren't their problem as it wasn't written into their requirements. The Army literally changed their definitions of "good" performance after the bullet failed on windshield glass, calling it's fragmenting and penetrating in multiple small pieces an "advantage" that will increase hit probability vs prior standards calling for a projectile to remain in one piece and penetrate glass in a straight line. A1 is hot garbage. Yes, it is better than green tip...but that's not saying much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2021 10:11:30 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's not even addressing the program management team that said they didn't care if it broke the rifles it was used in because that wasn't their program and the broken rifles weren't their problem as it wasn't written into their requirements. ... it is better than green tip...but that's not saying much. It got the major who was first assigned to manage it to brigadier, so there's that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2021 10:19:41 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It got the major who was first assigned to manage it to brigadier, so there's that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's not even addressing the program management team that said they didn't care if it broke the rifles it was used in because that wasn't their program and the broken rifles weren't their problem as it wasn't written into their requirements. ... it is better than green tip...but that's not saying much. It got the major who was first assigned to manage it to brigadier, so there's that. I don't doubt it. I asked some guys who worked the issue with broken rifles/worn barrels and their response was along the lines of "the M-4 isn't all that great anyway and if we break them, we can design and build a better rifle anyway...like the SCAR". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2021 3:32:33 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It got the major who was first assigned to manage it to brigadier, so there's that. It's a shame that major didn't have to pay for the lawsuit out of his pension, instead of the taxpayers footing the bill to defend his patent theft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2021 10:43:31 AM EDT
[#24]
 M855A1 Accuracy Test  M855A1 Reloading Test |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2021 11:26:46 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's a shame that major didn't have to pay for the lawsuit out of his pension, instead of the taxpayers footing the bill to defend his patent theft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2021 11:54:15 AM EDT
[#26]
The only interest I have in m855a1 is for its better than m855 armor piercing abilities, and more importantly its crazy low expansion threshold, something like fragmentation at 1400 fps
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2021 2:15:40 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The only interest I have in m855a1 is for its better than m855 armor piercing abilities, and more importantly its crazy low expansion threshold, something like fragmentation at 1400 fps |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2021 3:03:44 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The only interest I have in m855a1 is for its better than m855 armor piercing abilities, and more importantly its crazy low expansion threshold, something like fragmentation at 1400 fps Assuming that fragmentation was what you were after. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2021 4:11:40 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Assuming that fragmentation was what you were after. If we are to be pedantic, fragmentation is expansion. And yeah I just misspoke, it's still early morning here.And I did say fragmentation 3 words later so I figured my point was clear |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2021 4:30:03 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If we are to be pedantic, fragmentation is expansion. And yeah I just misspoke, it's still early morning here.And I did say fragmentation 3 words later so I figured my point was clear With expansion generally comes fragmentation but not always. They are not the same. Fragmentation The process or state of breaking or being broken into small or separate parts. Expansion The action of becoming larger or more extensive No need to be cunty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2021 5:44:04 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: With expansion generally comes fragmentation but not always. They are not the same. Fragmentation The process or state of breaking or being broken into small or separate parts. Expansion The action of becoming larger or more extensive No need to be cunty. I'm from New England, cunty is in my blood. but when an object fragments, it literally becomes larger. Its surface area increases several hundred fold, and becomes much more extensive, so technically, by fragmenting, it is expanding in area greatly |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2021 5:51:56 PM EDT
[#32]
Continued cuntiness from anyone will result in a lock, so let's stop that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2021 4:36:45 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The US Army's Fiscal Year 2020 and 2021 Budgets show the Army is only buying M855A1 Ball now -- no more M193 or M855, so anyone the Army supports with ammo (our own troops, allies drawing from our stocks, or contractors provided government ammo) will generally be issued A1 unless they are rotating first-in / first-out of remaining M855. The 82nd's powerpoint slide shows purported "Feed ramp damage" using photos a member here or on TOS produced using typewriter white-out to highlight feed ramps. The Army using them as proof of weapons damage is pure, unadulterated horse-shit like Democrat-antifa press. Another photo shows feed damage where A1 steel points are hitting the bottom of a rifle barrel extension in an M4 receiver. That is so blatantly obvious a lie I'm sure that guy's pants caught fire and gave him at least second-degree burns. M855A1 is pretty good out to 300 Meters from M4A1s. At 400 it starts getting blown around a bit if there are any winds. At 500 it's a challenge keeping all rounds from an M4 within an E-type silhouette using iron sights. Anyone who parrots "M855A1 wrecks GI guns" should be beaten with a dirty diaper. Twice. Then be forced to eat it. Saved me some typing. Ty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2021 6:02:56 PM EDT
[#34]
It seems to me like if they wanted to design a bullet with better barrier penetration and terminal ballistics over green tip, they should have made a steel core OTM bullet with a thick jacket.
Fully steel core would have good barrier penetration. Thick jacket and OTM construction would have decent terminal performance (obviously not as good as a softpoint but they could design it to shed the jacket relatively easily). Still lead-free. No exposed steel tip to scrape against internals during feeding. Would probably be simpler and cheaper to manufacture than M855A1 (just make a steel core and draw a copper jacket over it). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2021 6:39:34 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It seems to me like if they wanted to design a bullet with better barrier penetration and terminal ballistics over green tip, they should have made a steel core OTM bullet with a thick jacket. Fully steel core would have good barrier penetration. Thick jacket and OTM construction would have decent terminal performance (obviously not as good as a softpoint but they could design it to shed the jacket relatively easily). Still lead-free. Would probably be simpler and cheaper to manufacture than M855A1 (just make a steel core and draw a copper jacket over it). Steel is nowhere near as heavy as lead. Ask shotgunners. Lead gives a bullet some density/weight to maintain velocity over distance. M855A1 is OK, but it gets blown around a bit after 300 yards. The bullet's spinning nearly the same revs, but the projo itself is shedding velocity. It's the same length as a 77-grain Sierra Match King, but lighter. Physics. It meets general Army doctrine to engage and kill soldiers to 300 Meters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2021 7:20:20 PM EDT
[#36]
It’s got a better BC than M855, what more did we expect on that front?
You can’t use a solid steel core without some grooving in the jacket. It doesn’t compress so it’ll wear out barrels fast. Copper is bad enough about that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2021 9:32:56 PM EDT
[#37]
Turns out the British made a round almost exactly like I described called L31A1, developed by BAE Systems.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/08/23/new-ammo-british-troops-uk-develops-effective-5-56mm-7-62mm-ammunition/ Difference being they still used the traditional front-to-back jacket draw rather than an OTM. But they figured out how to make a 62gr bullet composed of just a steel core with a copper jacket. A tad longer to get it to 62gr using just steel and no lead, but sectional density helps with both ballistics coefficient and penetration. According to the article, British courts consider OTM to be a violation of the Hague convention, hence their use of front-to-back jacket draw. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2021 11:04:35 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Turns out the British made a round almost exactly like I described called L31A1, developed by BAE Systems. https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/08/23/new-ammo-british-troops-uk-develops-effective-5-56mm-7-62mm-ammunition/ Difference being they still used the traditional front-to-back jacket draw rather than an OTM. But they figured out how to make a 62gr bullet composed of just a steel core with a copper jacket. A tad longer to get it to 62gr using just steel and no lead, but sectional density helps with both ballistics coefficient and penetration. According to the article, British courts consider OTM to be a violation of the Hague convention, hence their use of front-to-back jacket draw. Their round is designed not to fragment at all, and I imagine it is a much better barrier round than m855a1, although I'd be concerned about its eternal effect, It may be even worse than m855 terminally speaking. It would be very similar to see it formally tested. Its like they took the opposite approach, we made m855 softer so it will fragment, they made it harder as to penetrate better. I wonder how long m855a1 will remain in service before its replaced by a 6-7mm ultra Killy armor piercing round |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2021 11:43:36 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Turns out the British made a round almost exactly like I described called L31A1, developed by BAE Systems. https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/08/23/new-ammo-british-troops-uk-develops-effective-5-56mm-7-62mm-ammunition/ Difference being they still used the traditional front-to-back jacket draw rather than an OTM. But they figured out how to make a 62gr bullet composed of just a steel core with a copper jacket. A tad longer to get it to 62gr using just steel and no lead, but sectional density helps with both ballistics coefficient and penetration. According to the article, British courts consider OTM to be a violation of the Hague convention, hence their use of front-to-back jacket draw. That's really no different than steel core AP rounds. The Euros hate fragmenting bullets because they see them as inhumane (too effective). NAMMO and CBC also make M855A1 type rounds for various countries but they don't frag either |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2021 11:49:58 AM EDT
[#40]
Armor piercing effects is just going to be more and more important to the military in the future. It’s an obsession for Milley.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2021 2:48:39 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Would probably be simpler and cheaper to manufacture than M855A1 (just make a steel core and draw a copper jacket over it). The numbers I saw a few years ago had M855A1 and M855 costs being virtually the same |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2021 3:56:35 PM EDT
[#42]
It does not appear that M855A1 is yaw dependent - examination of the tract shows that the neck is less than an inch long at muzzle velocities, which would suggest that fragmentation is beginning to occur before the bullet has even fully entered the gel block. It seems unlikely that yaw would occur that quickly. It is also claimed that M855A1 is not susceptible to inconsistencies relating to fleet yaw and angle of attack as a yaw dependent bullet would be.
The mechanism of initiating fragmentation seems to center around the steel penetrator beginning to separate from the rest of the projectile, at which point the jacket starts to strip off. If yaw does play any part, it would most likely be in breaking off the nose if the bullet were to begin turning at an angle, as reportedly happens with Bergers, but the initial tract appears too straight for this to be how disruption generally begins. Compared to traditional OTMs like SMK, I expect that M855A1 would be much more consistent, at the cost of being less destructive (less, shallower fragmentation). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2021 4:10:53 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It does not appear that M855A1 is yaw dependent - examination of the tract shows that the neck is less than an inch long at muzzle velocities, which would suggest that fragmentation is beginning to occur before the bullet has even fully entered the gel block. It seems unlikely that yaw would occur that quickly. It is also claimed that M855A1 is not susceptible to inconsistencies relating to fleet yaw and angle of attack as a yaw dependent bullet would be. The mechanism of initiating fragmentation seems to center around the steel penetrator beginning to separate from the rest of the projectile, at which point the jacket starts to strip off. If yaw does play any part, it would most likely be in breaking off the nose if the bullet were to begin turning at an angle, as reportedly happens with Bergers, but the initial tract appears too straight for this to be how disruption generally begins. Compared to traditional OTMs like SMK, I expect that M855A1 would be much more consistent, at the cost of being less destructive (less, shallower fragmentation). It's not a mystery, there are plenty of gel tests out there. It's plenty destructive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2021 4:27:43 PM EDT
[#44]
DISCLAIMER: I have not shot anyone with it. I know guys that have shot bad guys with 855A1, and the general consensus is "It fucks dudes UP". I don't have pics, just anecdotal accounts from dudes I know have been downrange and in some TICs.
I have shot a LOT of 855A1in competition, and I don't hold any wind at 200, and at 500, in a 8-10mph Full Value wind, I only held 7" and shot 10's and X''s. If I had my choice, I would shoot 855A1 all the time, at everything, in a tactical setting. In competition to where I am only not constrained to A1 I would choose a 77gr Lapua or SMK bullet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2021 4:38:50 PM EDT
[#45]
 I might have some samples...  These are more my style... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2021 5:03:54 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not a mystery, there are plenty of gel tests out there. It's plenty destructive. I'm aware - my observations are based on the existing gel tests. Compared to lead core OTMs, the fragmentation doesn't appear to extend over as long of a distance or as far into the track, and the total fragment mass is about half that, not counting the core itself. (The penetrator-core separation can be likened to jacket-core separation in traditional bullets; increases hit probability of vital structures, but I doubt it contributes very greatly to the exacerbating effect of fragmentation on the temporary cavity, since an intact core has less area and is putting holes in fewer places than numerous small fragments of equal combined mass.) I don't doubt that it's an effective round, merely that it would match the raw wound volume of traditional fragmenting OTMs. I would gauge the overall terminal performance in soft tissue as superior due to better consistency and a much lower frag threshold. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2021 7:31:17 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm aware - my observations are based on the existing gel tests. Compared to lead core OTMs, the fragmentation doesn't appear to extend over as long of a distance or as far into the track, and the total fragment mass is about half that, not counting the core itself. (The penetrator-core separation can be likened to jacket-core separation in traditional bullets; increases hit probability of vital structures, but I doubt it contributes very greatly to the exacerbating effect of fragmentation on the temporary cavity, since an intact core has less area and is putting holes in fewer places than numerous small fragments of equal combined mass.) I don't doubt that it's an effective round, merely that it would match the raw wound volume of traditional fragmenting OTMs. I would gauge the overall terminal performance in soft tissue as superior due to better consistency and a much lower frag threshold. From looking at gel, m855a1 seems to be slightly more wounding volume than bonded soft points and slightly less volume than quality OTMs, but the draw for 855a1 is the ultra consistent fragging and amazingly low fragmentation velocity The drawback to 855a1 is the poor intermediate barrier performance, particularly auto glass, similar to OTMs, albeit with better armor penetrating abilities |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2021 7:00:42 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The US Army's Fiscal Year 2020 and 2021 Budgets show the Army is only buying M855A1 Ball now -- no more M193 or M855, so anyone the Army supports with ammo (our own troops, allies drawing from our stocks, or contractors provided government ammo) will generally be issued A1 unless they are rotating first-in / first-out of remaining M855. The 82nd's powerpoint slide shows purported "Feed ramp damage" using photos a member here or on TOS produced using typewriter white-out to highlight feed ramps. The Army using them as proof of weapons damage is pure, unadulterated horse-shit like Democrat-antifa press. Another photo shows feed damage where A1 steel points are hitting the bottom of a rifle barrel extension in an M4 receiver. That is so blatantly obvious a lie I'm sure that guy's pants caught fire and gave him at least second-degree burns. M855A1 is pretty good out to 300 Meters from M4A1s. At 400 it starts getting blown around a bit if there are any winds. At 500 it's a challenge keeping all rounds from an M4 within an E-type silhouette using iron sights. Anyone who parrots "M855A1 wrecks GI guns" should be beaten with a dirty diaper. Twice. Then be forced to eat it. Actually, those pictures are typical of damage seen in the Army published reports, such as: "M855A1 Weapon System Interaction Analysis", "M855A1 Magazine Bias Analysis", and "Modified Magazine Design and Analysis" That amount of damage was seen after approximately 8,000 rounds. what was more alarming that the damage, was the fact that failures-to-feed malfunction increased in weapons using M855A1 with tan-follower magazines. The fact that the M855A1 did, in fact, ding up the aluminum upper receiver feed ramps, is the reason the Enhanced Performance Magazine was designed in the first place, and why the USMC switched to MAGPUL magazines. Both of these magazine present the nose of the bullet about 5 degrees higher and one degrees inward to keep the steel penetrator on the steel barrel extension during feeding. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2021 7:20:24 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It wasn't the major's fault. Picatinny Arsenal claimed it was Army-developed intellectual property, NOT crediting the guy who had and maintained-defended his patent. You guys might want to brush up on the latest information on this case. The Army won the case on appeal. And looking at the actual patent and what it claimed, this is the correct decision. One of the main claims of the patent was that the front and rear portions of the bullet have a reduced section where they meet and this reduced section have a tubular jacket, thus joining the front to the rear.  The M855A1 is not constructed this way, but a conventional jacket, and a conventional core* with a penetrator crimped into the jacket. _____ * Albeit the core material is unconventional, being copper instead of lead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2021 12:49:50 PM EDT
[#50]
The 62gr CCu round performs near identical to M855A1 from what I've seen in animals and gel, down to 1500fps, minus the hard armor capabilities, but + some accuracy for sure, in my testing at least.
|
|
|
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.
