[ARCHIVED THREAD] - M855A1 Accuracy (Page 2 of 6)
|
Quoted: Of course I must ask, where a regular fella such as myself, could procure such things? It's not sold to civilians and some people have claimed that every round on the market is stolen. Much like KAC BUIS I see a metric ton of it for sale so it's getting into the market by the thousands if not tens of thousands of rounds. |
|
Quoted: Per Ballistic Performance of Rifle Bullets by Bryan Litz the G1 ballistic coefficient for legacy M855 is 0.300. Per the same reference the ballistic coefficient of M855A1 is 0.291. In ... Quoted: Quoted: I'd imagine that inceased BC of the new projectile . . . Per Ballistic Performance of Rifle Bullets by Bryan Litz the G1 ballistic coefficient for legacy M855 is 0.300. Per the same reference the ballistic coefficient of M855A1 is 0.291. In ... Thank you. That’s nuts. To my eye it looks like it would be similar to 65 grain ballistic tip or 70 grain OTM. I trust the literature but it looks long. |
|
Quoted: Just a side note, at one time Widener's reloading sold IMI .224" 62g 100% lead-cored bullets, I don't know if they still have it. It is said they don't have the steel-core, so it is more accurate because there is no wobble because of the steel-core. Not sure is this is hype. @Molon, Would the penetrator looseness/spin —or lack or, in your case affect precision, in your opinion? Would that be why the early ones spun & now—they don’t. Better precision/accuracy? Thanks! |
|
Quoted: Great writeup. I love these kind of posts. But to really draw a conclusion on A1, penetration and fragmentation results would be needed at various ranges. For the average Joe with no access to these there isnt any immediate advantages over 193 and 855 I may be wrong, but I believe it can defeat some armor in comparison |
|
Quoted: I may be wrong, but I believe it can defeat some armor in comparison Quoted: Quoted: Great writeup. I love these kind of posts. But to really draw a conclusion on A1, penetration and fragmentation results would be needed at various ranges. For the average Joe with no access to these there isnt any immediate advantages over 193 and 855 I may be wrong, but I believe it can defeat some armor in comparison I think soft only, not plates. And that titanium plate stuff the Rooskies used. But ceramic plates, no. |
|
Quoted: I've read that the exposed hardened tip on the m855A1 is hard on feed ramps. I don't know how many rounds it would take to cause significant damage. Can anyone comment on this? Yes, my rifle has noticeable damage to the feed ramps from using plain mags and not the approved magazines. |
|
Quoted: So where does one buy this ammo? I had found some on Gunbroker about a year or so ago for $1 per round. Bought a small lot to try out. Then bought some pulls for relatively cheap about the same time. I paid around 45 cents a piece for them. They are considerably more now. |
|
Quoted: Build up speed? Do tell. Quoted: Quoted: I wish the guys that do these would put the chrono a little farther out so the bullet can build up a bit more speed and we can the actual velocities real world style. Build up speed? Do tell. You know, have to change gears. Do I have to explain everything to you noobs. 
|
|
Quoted: It's not sold to civilians and some people have claimed that every round on the market is stolen. Much like KAC BUIS I see a metric ton of it for sale so it's getting into the market by the thousands if not tens of thousands of rounds. I’ve seen the stories on the internet about it. Apparently a company owned the patent to the bullet and the gov lost a suit trying to hold them back from selling it. So technically the LC stuff might fall under that umbrella. The other company can sell all it wants. |
|
Quoted: You know, have to change gears. Do I have to explain everything to you noobs. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I wish the guys that do these would put the chrono a little farther out so the bullet can build up a bit more speed and we can the actual velocities real world style. Build up speed? Do tell. You know, have to change gears. Do I have to explain everything to you noobs. Chang gears? I thought this new sissy ammo had a CVT. |
|
Quoted: Just a side note, at one time Widener's reloading sold IMI .224" 62g 100% lead-cored bullets, I don't know if they still have it. It is said they don't have the steel-core, so it is more accurate because there is no wobble because of the steel-core. Not sure is this is hype. You/we must be old...I bought this bullet from Wideners and reloaded it. Never bought the factory ammo...It (the bullet) was really consistent (accurate) down range... Never bought M855 bullets because of this bullet...I have only reloaded 62gr lead (core) bullets since the the 62gr IMI bullets have dried up... Memories...thanks @warlord Molon...as usual, a great post...nice to see you posting/testing... |
|
Quoted: Thank you. That’s nuts. To my eye it looks like it would be similar to 65 grain ballistic tip or 70 grain OTM. I trust the literature but it looks long. The shape - as best a human eye can guesstimate such things - is pretty similar, but remember that this is a copper/steel projectile so even if the form factor was exactly the same as a 70 grain OTM/BTHP , the SD is much lower, hence the BC is lower. |
|
[b]Quoted: In the category of useless trivia, the M855A1 bullet cuts the cleanest holes in paper targets of any 5.56mm/223 Remington ammunition that I’ve ever tested. It’s like wad-cutters for the AR-15. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855a1_bullets_holes_001-2423080.jpg … On a technical note - I can't figure this out. The velocity isn't so different than normal, that likely isn't it. The tip is pointy and harder than typical, but I wouldn't think enough to matter. But could that be it? The body is a 2 component copper on copper system. Is there some sort of galling, on the bearing surface that results in a lip or ring at the base of the ogive? |
|
Quoted: On a technical note - I can't figure this out. The velocity isn't so different than normal, that likely isn't it. The tip is pointy and harder than typical, but I wouldn't think enough to matter. But could that be it? The body is a 2 component copper on copper system. Is there some sort of galling, on the bearing surface that results in a lip or ring at the base of the ogive? Quoted: [b]Quoted: In the category of useless trivia, the M855A1 bullet cuts the cleanest holes in paper targets of any 5.56mm/223 Remington ammunition that I’ve ever tested. It’s like wad-cutters for the AR-15. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855a1_bullets_holes_001-2423080.jpg … On a technical note - I can't figure this out. The velocity isn't so different than normal, that likely isn't it. The tip is pointy and harder than typical, but I wouldn't think enough to matter. But could that be it? The body is a 2 component copper on copper system. Is there some sort of galling, on the bearing surface that results in a lip or ring at the base of the ogive? Maybe it's the jacket crimp that's cutting the hole |
|
Quoted: @Molon 's reviews of the Colt SOCOM barrels have cost me a good amount of money. Both examples I've purchased have been excellent performers. My favorite barrels for sure. Quoted: Quoted: God damn that Colt Socom is at it again  Thanks Molon! Same. Best CL barrels made for the ar15 IMHO. |
|
Quoted: Question: Other than better accuracy, what's the advantage over M855? Talk to me like I'm an old coot who still doesn't see much (any?) advantage with M855 over M193. I’m not 100% sure but I’d say ‘better’ barrier & armor penetration. How much better I’m not sure. I highly doubt it’s worth the $2-3 rd cost. I’ll stick to mk262 & m855. If it was commercially available I may buy some… but then I would have to deal with the correct mags to keep feed ramps from getting peened. |
|
Quoted: Question: Other than better accuracy, what's the advantage over M855? Talk to me like I'm an old coot who still doesn't see much (any?) advantage with M855 over M193. Consistency in terminal ballistic performance. It wounds very well and very consistently from everything I've read/heard from end-users. |
|
Quoted: Much appreciated, and thanks to Esstac as well. This has been a unique opportunity and I'm grateful for the info. Indeed, the Hodge barrel is found lacking. I'm not surprised by the SOCOM barrel, but the BCM comparison is pretty damning in this sample. I’ve been under the impression for years that bcm barrels have never been known for their accuracy. Especially comparing their socom profile to the colt. |
|
Quoted: Maybe it's the jacket crimp that's cutting the hole Quoted: Quoted: [b]Quoted: In the category of useless trivia, the M855A1 bullet cuts the cleanest holes in paper targets of any 5.56mm/223 Remington ammunition that I’ve ever tested. It’s like wad-cutters for the AR-15. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/m855a1_bullets_holes_001-2423080.jpg … On a technical note - I can't figure this out. The velocity isn't so different than normal, that likely isn't it. The tip is pointy and harder than typical, but I wouldn't think enough to matter. But could that be it? The body is a 2 component copper on copper system. Is there some sort of galling, on the bearing surface that results in a lip or ring at the base of the ogive? Maybe it's the jacket crimp that's cutting the hole That's a good thought as well. The reason it's worth an extra half-second of pause to ponder, is what is causing the bullet to cut a precise hole like that, and what does that mean to ballistics"? If there is a sharp or blunt outer ring, then one can ponder, does that also affect my BC, and thus my flight characteristics? A sharp ring (if that's the reason), one would think would have a negative impact on such. At 200 yards probably a non-item, But for shots and engagements at 500 yards+ (Afghanistan), it might? Anyway, just like Molon, who pointed it out, one can't help but ponder "why, and what does that cascade to?", when one see's an unusual tangential detail like that. Which of course, is the fun of the whole Thing! :) At the beginning this bullet was promoted as a match quality bullet a decade ago. MOLON's accuracy data seems to show that its'... fine, but I wouldn't call it quite the match level American Rifleman's article seemed to imply. Personally, I think it's a very expensive bullet and a rich-countries hobby - as IMHO, having twice the ammo of comperable efficacy at the same price, is a more sound military investment for line-troops engaging in assault-rifle level engagements. That said, this is a fantastic and extremely valuble assessment post of our nations current military, that's the best and most detailed assessment I've seen yet - and once again, am grateful to Molon for his scientifc rigor and analysis. He keeps his own bias and opinions out of the OP, and just focuses on a stand-alone assessment, in a manner inspiration to others trying to do and compose analysis. |
|
Quoted: Question: Other than better accuracy, what's the advantage over M855? Talk to me like I'm an old coot who still doesn't see much (any?) advantage with M855 over M193. 200 and in, there's not much difference between the three against an E-type silhouette. 300 yards, the advantage goes to M855A1 over the other two. Terminal ballistics become moot if you're not connecting. 400 yards and M855A1 is still doing fairly well, while M193 is getting blown around a little by any wind, and M855 groups are really becoming hit-and-miss. 500 to 600 yards is really advantage 77s and 69s -- your "Match" bullets. They have the kinetic "Ass" behind them to still be effective past 750 to 850 out of a 16-incher. You can still kill someone with the M855 and M193, but you're going to need to take more shots to connect. At the distances most people shoot (200 yards/Meters and in), M193 or 55-grain handloads are your sweet spot for precision, velocity, and cost, generally speaking (until you start shooting smaller plates -- where you'll probably want match ammo). Molon, not trying to create extra work for you -- but can you post composite groups of M193, M855, and M855A1 next to each other? |
|
Quoted: Question: Other than better accuracy, what's the advantage over M855? Talk to me like I'm an old coot who still doesn't see much (any?) advantage with M855 over M193. |
|
Quoted: Question: Other than better accuracy, what's the advantage over M855? Talk to me like I'm an old coot who still doesn't see much (any?) advantage with M855 over M193. Barrier blind, not yaw dependent, frags down to a much lower velocity, pretty insane soft tissue penetration |
|
Quoted: Smaller groups M855A1 shoots IS the better juice over M855. All the fancy lead-free and steel pointy penetrator aren't worth a damn if you aren't HITTING what you're aiming at. 200 and in, there's not much difference between the three against an E-type silhouette. 300 yards, the advantage goes to M855A1 over the other two. Terminal ballistics become moot if you're not connecting. 400 yards and M855A1 is still doing fairly well, while M193 is getting blown around a little by any wind, and M855 groups are really becoming hit-and-miss. 500 to 600 yards is really advantage 77s and 69s -- your "Match" bullets. They have the kinetic "Ass" behind them to still be effective past 750 to 850 out of a 16-incher. You can still kill someone with the M855 and M193, but you're going to need to take more shots to connect. At the distances most people shoot (200 yards/Meters and in), M193 or 55-grain handloads are your sweet spot for precision, velocity, and cost, generally speaking (until you start shooting smaller plates -- where you'll probably want match ammo). Molon, not trying to create extra work for you -- but can you post composite groups of M193, M855, and M855A1 next to each other? Quoted: Quoted: Question: Other than better accuracy, what's the advantage over M855? Talk to me like I'm an old coot who still doesn't see much (any?) advantage with M855 over M193. 200 and in, there's not much difference between the three against an E-type silhouette. 300 yards, the advantage goes to M855A1 over the other two. Terminal ballistics become moot if you're not connecting. 400 yards and M855A1 is still doing fairly well, while M193 is getting blown around a little by any wind, and M855 groups are really becoming hit-and-miss. 500 to 600 yards is really advantage 77s and 69s -- your "Match" bullets. They have the kinetic "Ass" behind them to still be effective past 750 to 850 out of a 16-incher. You can still kill someone with the M855 and M193, but you're going to need to take more shots to connect. At the distances most people shoot (200 yards/Meters and in), M193 or 55-grain handloads are your sweet spot for precision, velocity, and cost, generally speaking (until you start shooting smaller plates -- where you'll probably want match ammo). Molon, not trying to create extra work for you -- but can you post composite groups of M193, M855, and M855A1 next to each other? What is the reliable frag velocity for the A1? |
|
Quoted: Barrier blind, not yaw dependent, frags down to a much lower velocity, pretty insane soft tissue penetration Sierra 30-caliber Match Kings, being ass-heavy, had a tendency to flip on penetration, then break in half as centrifugal force caused the jacket to break at the airspace-lead interface in the nose. I think Lapua Scenar and AK-74 bullets do the same, but don't remember for sure. |
|
Quoted: M855A1 penetrates both HDPE and steel level III plates. It also has more consistent fragmentation at lower velocities. IMO it's a substantial advantage in performance and even works well from short barrels. Quoted: Quoted: Question: Other than better accuracy, what's the advantage over M855? Talk to me like I'm an old coot who still doesn't see much (any?) advantage with M855 over M193. To clarify IIRC regular 855 defeats level iii steel as well. |