I'm the same.

M855 will do fine. It got a bad rep when people expected too much of it coming out of short barrels. It needs velocity to fragment. M193 is still the go to though for affordability.

Idk..  something about Russia in the news

It was 8.98 if I remember for a 30 round box.  I bought the fuck outta it lol

70 cpr?  I'm rich beotch!

Sadly down to my last case of it.  Was $200 a case not all that long ago

M855 was never the king.

M855/SS109 works great in every 5.56 I have, from 1:9 to 1:7. Since the Mk 318 is also 62 gr but HPBTM, I would also like to pick up some of that and would expect even better results. I have never had any M855A1. By 'results' I mean function and accuracy.

I should have taken advantage of that.

Sigh.

I still like it, buy it and shoot it.

Most of my ammo stash is 193. I do have a couple of cases of XTAC 855 that I have assigned to a 20" A4 ish rifle with a PSA CHF barreled upper on an Anderson lower with a A1 stock instead of an A2 stock. As someone stated earlier, I'd use it if penetration is desired.

M855A1 has been the standard for the U.S. military for 10 years now.

U.S. Army ammunition plants still make M855 for foreign allies and commercial sales. Same with M193.

There are no “billions of rounds of M193.”  It’s either been shot or given away as aid. Sorry the 80s was 40 years ago. M16A2s and 855 are now the prior generation gear in the war reserve.

Would love to find some of the mk318 bullets.
I’ve stocked up on m193 and couple of cans of m855 on stripper clips during the Walmart purge

I always laugh as M855 was speced to pierce a specific Russian helmet at some distance. Meanwhile the accuracy is so terrible that I don't think a shooter could actually hit a helmet at that distance.

I had a conversation with Sylvan about this.  He told me he would use 855 in his first mag and subsequent mags in the load out would all be 77gr OTM.  

That is how I set up my truck gun.  I have a lot more 193 than 855.  I might have more 77gr OTM than 855.  

Sylvan gave his reasons for what he told me, it made sense at the time.  I cannot regurgitate it so I will not speak further for him.

I took advantage on your behalf, I have a 40mm ammo can full

As others posted it never was king.  Shitty accuracy, marginal penetration improvement, more expensive.  It was always a compromise and mediocre round.  

M193 is superior.

That seems right. Remember the zqi 7.62x51 for $5/20? It shoots 2-3moa but is good enough for steel.

in the early 1990's at Ft Bragg we had trouble getting 193 in the volume we needed it for CQB training. 193 was preferable to 855 as the latter tore up the steel in shoot houses, especially in high wear areas such as corners.  

I'm going say 193 is depleted. There may some out in obscure AHAs out there but my guess is that it's pretty well gone and has been replaced with 855.

Who would willingly use M855? M193 is the better ball round and Gold Dot is King.

It might be more accurate than you'd expect

I see your ZQI and raise you Hirtenbeger for 10cpr….

It's really not that bad.

Yup.

That was 30+ years ago though, right?

M855/ss109 can be very accurate.

Try Ggg, Norma, Swiss, or European brands vs American ones

Yea, you’re right for sure time flies and the old days are not the same old.

My main ammo use for training is m193 with a side of 77 grain otm.

I’ve got a fair amount of m855 but only 3 mags loaded up with it I think.

That sucks to hear but is expected, agreed 100% on the m855 tearing up steel targets.

Sounds like m855 is the surplus round on hand now, heck I think the M16A2 isn’t that old but surplus is now the A4 surely.

I believe the US Army's last buy of M855 was FY12 (1 October 2010 through 31 September 2011):  Army Ammunition Procurement Money, FY2012

Granted im aviation, but at the range yesterday it was all m855a1.

I am fairly harsh on 855 I’ll admit I have had zero issues with the 1000s I have shot and it’s fairly accurate it’s terminal ballistics is meh with all the other options I just see no need for 855 especially for my needs.

I wouldn't argue with that. With the price of rmr 75gr bthp I don't even load 55gr bullets anymore.

855 sucks accuracy wise.  855A1 is where it’s at.

I will only buy more if it's cheap. Not bad but it slightly dings up steel but so does x39 steel case.


I will probably start shooting my 855 stash up because I have a ton.

Ditto

Its also become a standard duty load for some federal agencies that can MIPR funds to DoD and get ammo that comes packaged in cans/pallets.  

318 is what FBI T3 was supposed to be but wasn't.

Looked in the local ammo stash in the weapons room we have.  It is M855 and M882 in ammo cans for us here but we do have M3 PMAGS.  TA01NSN acogs too.  We finally got the M17s and M18s.  

When I could check out ammo for training courses I used M855 and shot Lake City M193 because I had to turn in the brass if the courses would not allow my team and I use M855.

does anyone have any verified / reliable info on what we are sending to Ukraine ?

my guess would be M855.

About…..The last case I bought was in 2002, from a buddy, for $100 but I think he bought it a few years earlier. This was around the same time I was getting those 2700 rd tubs of SA 5.56 for around $250 delivered, IIRC.

ZQI was also a great deal and I think I still have about 1000 rds left somewhere.

I have it on good "deep insider" authority that M855 was originally designed for SAW application. M249 and such. Because M855 has lower accuracy requirements. But Big green seeing a way to streamline production or sum such said it was "good enough" for individual weapons and the mass issuing of M855 hit the troops.

I never bought into the hype of the green jelly beans myself.

When the 855 panic hit a while back I traded all my 855 for x2 M193.  

M855 and Mk262 mod1 for all the things here.

You can still find 855 if you look hard enough.
Just picked up a few thousand more last October.



H

It never was

Heck, I thought it came about with the change to 1x7 twist rate in the M16A2.

straight from the US Army -- article is dated but relevant :


--------------------------

Evolution of the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round

By Lt. Col. Jeffrey K. Woods (USAASC)    November 26, 2010

https://www.army.mil/article/48657/evolution_of_the_m855a1_enhanced_performance_round


PICATINNY ARSENAL, N.J. -- Perhaps no subject is closer to the hearts of Soldiers than their weapons and ammunition. For decades, this intense interest in "guns and ammo" has sparked sharp debate over the best weapons and ammunition on the battlefield, a debate that continues to the present day.

Today, Program Executive Office Ammunition (PEO Ammo) at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J., manages DOD's conventional ammunition programs for all of the military services. PEO Ammo has life-cycle responsibility for the many different types of ammunition used by the joint warfighter, including general-purpose small-arms ammunition.

In 1960, when Army Research and Development Newsmagazine-the forerunner of Army AL&T Magazine -first appeared in print, a major controA,A!versy was raging over the relative merits of the then-standard 7.62mm round and a lighter, higher-velocity 5.56mm alternative. The Army adopted the 5.56mm M16 rifle in 1967; it fired the M193, the first 5.56mm round.

Nevertheless, the controversy continued over which caliber was better-5.56mm vs. 7.62mm-as the magazine noted through the years. In 1982, a review by Army Research, Development, and Acquisition Magazine (as it was then called) of small-arms ammunition development praised the lighter weight and lesser recoil achieved with the smaller round, yet observed that, "One of the inferiorities is, however, its penetration capability."

In 1982, the Army adopted the 5.56mm M855 round to replace the M193 in an effort to achieve better performance at longer ranges with the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW). A steel penetrator in the front end of the M855 provides increased hard-target performance.

Development of the M16A2 rifle, which matched the twist of the M249 SAW, also allowed use of the heavier M855 round. The M193 is still produced today, largely for foreign military sales.

From 2003 to 2006, the Army conducted a study of available bullets, commercial and military, and found none that provided improved performance over the M855 against the target sets required of a general-purpose round.

Ensuring Consistency and Environmental Responsibility

In post-combat surveys and field reports from Iraq and Afghanistan, most Soldiers have indicated that the round works fine, delivering the desired effects against threat targets. But some Soldiers have reported that the round did not perform consistently, causing concern in the ammunition community.

In parallel, mounting environmental concerns drove the Army to consider replacing environmentally unfriendly materials such as lead. The Army's ammunition community, led by PEO Ammo, saw an opportunity to address the two concerns associated with the M855 round-lead and consistency.

The Army's solution is the new M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round (EPR). This round offers better performance than the M855 against all targets likely to be engaged with small arms. This is quite a feat, considering the long-standing solid performance of the M855.

While it's true that a number of bullets (such as armor-piercing bullets) can penetrate hard targets well, they don't provide the needed effects against soft targets. Conversely, some bullets (such as hunting rounds, hollow-point, and other bullets) work well against soft targets but can't penetrate harder barriers. Nor do hollow points meet the Army's requirement to adhere to the Law of War, defined as "[t]hat part of international law that regulates the conduct of armed hostilities. It is often called the 'law of armed conflict' " (DoD Directive 2311.01E, DoD Law of War Program). Even today, we have found no other round-other than the new EPR-that can outperform the M855 as a capable, general-purpose round.

Why the M855A1 Excels

So what makes the EPR so good' It uses the same components as the M855-a jacket, a penetrator, and a metal slug. But the new round contains some subtle changes (see Figure 1). The copper cup, from which the jacket is formed, is reverse-drawn, the opposite of how the M855 jacket is drawn. The hardened steel penetrator is almost twice as heavy as the one used in the M855 and is fully exposed instead of hiding beneath the softer copper jacket.

The slug is made of copper, making the projectile nonhazardous to the environment while delivering needed performance. Since the EPR is similar to the M855, the Army can use the same manufacturA,A!ing equipment now used for the M855, providing additional savings and large-scale manufacturing capability. Once the M855A1 replaces the leaded M855, it will reduce the amount of lead in production by approximately 2,000 metric tons yearly, based on the amount now used to make the M855.

There are three main areas in which the new round excels: soft-target consistency, hard-target penetration, and the extended range at which it maintains these performance improvements.

This is not to imply that the EPR increases the maximum effective range of the M4 or M16. Its trajectory matches the M855's, which aids in training, lessens the need to re-zero the weapon, and allows it to link to the current tracer round (the M856) for eventual use in the M249 SAW. So while the maximum effective range does not increase, effectiveness at range does, meaning the round greatly extends the range of desired effects along its trajectory.

The Army tackled the consistency issue by focusing on the yaw of a projectile and how differences in yaw can influence results when striking soft targets. The M855 round, similar to the Army's M80 (7.62mm ball round), is a "yaw-dependent" bullet. As any bullet travels along its trajectory, it "wobbles" in both pitch and yaw, causing the projectile to strike its target at different attitudes with virtually every shot.

For a yaw-dependent bullet such as the M855 or M80, this results in varying performance, depending upon where in the yaw/pitch cycle the bullet strikes its target. For example, at a high angle of yaw, the M855 performs very well, transferring its energy to the target in short order. At a low angle of yaw, however, the bullet reacts more slowly, causing the inconsistent effects observed in the field.

The M855A1 is not yaw-dependent. Like any other bullet, it "wobbles" along its trajectory. However, the EPR provides the same effects when striking its target, regardless of the angle of yaw. This means the EPR provides the same desired effects every time, whether in close combat situations or longer engagements. In fact, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) verified through live-fire tests against soft targets that, on average, the M855A1 surpassed the M80 7.62mm round. The 7.62mm, although a larger caliber, suffers from the same consistency issue as the M855, but to a higher degree.

Hard-target performance is a second area where the EPR really shines (see Figure 2). The exposed, heavier, and sharper penetrator, along with a higher velocity, allows Soldiers to penetrate tougher battlefield barriers than is possible with the current M855. Although it's not an armor-piercing round, the EPR can penetrate 3/8 inch-thick mild steel at distances approaching 400 meters (based on the range at which 50 percent of the rounds can pass through the barrier). The M855 only penetrates this material out to approximately 160 meters.

Not only is this performance much better than the M855's with its smaller steel penetrator, it is vastly better than the M80 7.62mm round.

Additionally, the EPR can penetrate concrete masonry units at ranges out to 80 meters with the M16 and 40 meters with the M4. The M855 can't penetrate this type of battlefield barrier at any range.

Also notable is the EPR's excellent performance against softer intermediate barriers such as car doors, windshields, or Kevlar fabric. The thinner metal found on car doors poses no problem. When engaging targets behind windshields with the EPR, ARL has shown an increase in the probability of hitting the occupant, due to both the steel penetrator and the copper slug remaining intact through the glass. Furthermore, ARL tested the round against 24 layers of Kevlar fabric out to 1,000 meters, but discontinued the test as the Kevlar showed no sign of being able to stop the EPR. The EPR also penetrates some lesser-quality body armors designed to stop 7.62mm ball rounds.

Another benefit Soldiers will see from the new round is its effectiveness when engaging soft targets at longer ranges.

As a small-caliber projectile's velocity decreases, it eventually will reach a point at which it can no longer transfer most of its energy to its target. Below this velocity, which equates to range, the round is more likely to pass through its target with little effect. The M855A1 can maintain consistent, desired effects at a much lower velocity, resulting in excellent effectiveness at far greater ranges along its trajectory.

In addition to the above-mentioned performance improvements, the EPR is more accurate than the M855. Accuracy testing during production lot acceptance has shown that, on average, 95 percent of the rounds will hit within an 8 x 8-inch target at 600 meters. It also uses a flash-reduced propellant optimized for the M4's shorter barrel.

The good news is that all of these performance improvements come with no weight increase to the Soldier.

Soldiers Are the Focus

Soldiers will surely discuss the M855A1 EPR during their ritual debates on guns and ammo. The new M855A1 will greatly increase Soldier performance on the battlefield, but inevitably, Soldiers will have the final vote as they must maintain their weapon systems, train, aim, and engage their targets. As always, good marksmanship skills are critical for success in small-arms engagements. No matter how good the bullet, it can't do its job if it doesn't hit the target.

During the past 50 years, 5.56mm general-purpose ammunition has evolved to a level of performance that addresses all of the major warfighting needs of our services. The M855A1 EPR is a significantly improved 5.56mm round that provides excellent soft target consistency and vastly better hard target performance, and increases our Soldiers' effectiveness at extended ranges with better accuracy-all without increasing their load.

The M855A1 represents the most significant performance leap in small-arms ammunition in decades. Our Soldiers deserve the best, and with the M855A1 EPR, they get it.

------------------------------------------------

YEAH BOI

I like M855 personally.  Admittedly, I do have three 20" 1/7 rifles though.  It can be VERY accurate in them.

Same.  Although, if I had the means, I would stack up some M855a1.

LOL, I did the same.  It was a short lived panic, but one that proved to be profitable.  I had about 2k rounds of M855.  I went to Sportsman’s Warehouse and cleaned them out of their 420 ct .30 cans (10 of them).   I listed it all on GB and had it all sold in 2 days for about 3x what I had paid for it.  Waited until prices came down on M193, then spent all the extra on M193.  That bumped my M193 stash to over 10k rounds.  Happy days.