AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - M855A1 article (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/8/2012 4:23:57 PM EDT
| Here is a link to the the best open source article I've seen detailing the myriad problems associated with M855A1: http://www.gunsandammo.com/201...oldiers-and-marines/ |
|
Quoted:
Here is a link to the the best open source article I've seen detailing the myriad problems associated with M855A1: http://www.gunsandammo.com/201...oldiers-and-marines/ Thanks Dr. |
|
Yep, Thanks.
This confirms one of my life's TRUISMS: In my 65 years on God's green earth, I have seen ANYTHING the government touches, turn to crap. ...plus the fraudulent notion of a freaking "green" cartridge? wtf? these higher up in this deal are fulla manure. Question: who is getting rich on this project; who is the "connected" crony capitalists here? FOLLOW THE MONEY! yeah, and remember...we provide our fighting men with gear MADE BY THE LOWEST BIDDER...yeah...great idea... |
|
Quoted:
Here is a link to the the best open source article I've seen detailing the myriad problems associated with M855A1: http://www.gunsandammo.com/201...oldiers-and-marines/ Two comments. 1. Emotional rehash of old news. We know development had problems, but M855A1 has been in production for quite some time, so what's the point? 2. Fails to address the most important question: How well (or poorly) has M855A1 performed in combat? |
|
Uh no...
First of all, the article author is not a random internet wannabe or pseudo-expert; he is a decorated, combat experienced military veteran, as well as one of the most respected LE officers on the west coast. Over the years I have shared data with his VERY large and influential agency regarding wound ballistics, post OIS incident forensics, LE ammunition selection, firearms testing issues, and body armor test protocols. The Army's "green" bullet program has been a BIG failure that has cost the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars. Aerosolized lead from primers and exposed lead on bullet bases is indeed a problem. Of course the solution is to use lead free primers and reverse jacket projectiles without exposed lead bases. I have yet to see a good study showing that lead in berms percolates through the soil into the water table. If launched using lead free primers, how exactly are lead core, reverse jacketed projectiles supposedly causing lead toxicity to shooters? So why is the Army insisting on lead free projectiles? As described previously, the Army's first very expensive attempt at environmentally friendly lead-free "green" ammo, the tungsten-nylon core "green" M855 ammunition was poorly conceived, badly implemented, did not work, and has turned out to be highly toxic, as discovered at Camp Edwards. The bismuth-tin core M855 LFS did NOT work as advertised and was another giant costly FAILURE. Lots of experienced engineers and scientists identified problems with the bismuth–tin core LFS projectile, but the Big Army chose to ignore all this advice. M855A1 is a good general purpose load for MG's, but NOT the optimal choice for carbines/rifles. It doesn't help that the recent Big Army briefings on the topic are filled with misleading statements and outright falsehoods. M855A1 is definitely more accurate than recent M855, about par with Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip”, while less accurate than Mk262. Current M855A1 is shooting about 2 MOA––however these are projectiles built on the old inefficient, more costly BAM, since to date, M855A1 has not successfully been run on the SCAMP line. IF M855A1 is ever able to be successfully built on SCAMP, then who knows where accuracy will be. Unfortunately, since the contract allows 5.5 MOA, eventually lots will be accepted with reduced accuracy, exactly as occurred with M855 “greentip” and M118LR produced following the post 9/11 ramp up in ammo production and concomitant need to relax accuracy requirements to reduce the number of rejected lots… From a general soft tissue terminal performance perspective, M855A1 is better and more consistent than M855 and Mk262, offering similar terminal performance to Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip”. M855A1 is definitely not barrier blind when punching through automobile windshields—both Mk318 and “browntip” are better at barriers like automobile windshields. M855A1 does penetrate steel and cinder block better than M855. M855A1 can defeat compressed LIII polyethelene hard armor plates just like current M855. Neither M855, M855A1, Mk318, nor “browntip” can penetrate current eSAPI armor If we go into combat against a true peer competitor nation who issues equivalent hard armor, M855A1 is not going to be any more effective than current M855; all our troops are going to need to be issued mass quantities of M995 if they want to have any hope of penetrating the personal armor of the opposition in such a scenario. There have been a few glowing reports coming out of Army units describing great battlefield M855A1 terminal performance when it was latter learned that the Soldiers in question had actually been shooting Mk318 SOST—interestingly the Army has not bothered to correct this misinformation. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me… Having been twice duped by the Big Army’s meretricious claims of M855 “green” and M855 LFS, the Marine Corps decided to finally exercise due diligence and conduct their own study on the merits of M855A1 vs. Mk318—this outstanding comprehensive study was fully funded and controlled by the USMC. Yet the Army has done EVERYTHING possible to try to control, inhibit, limit, and restrict distribution of the Marine Corps findings—just look at COL Hall’s asinine behavior this week trying to prevent the Marines from releasing data to other DOD and allied end-users. The Army does NOT want the truth revealed about several areas of M855A1: –– The true per cartridge cost of M855A1, as well as the full cost of the Army “green” ammo program. –– How the Army misappropriated the patent protected M855A1 design from an outside vendor and what that act of malfeasance has cost taxpayers. –– That M855A1 has so far only successfully been manufactured on the old inefficient, costly BAM and not on the SCAMP line. –– How the increased chamber pressure of M855A1 contributes to premature bolt and other part failures, including decreased barrel life/increased port erosion, as well as issues with damaged flash hiders. –– There is increased fouling from the dirty propellant used with M855A1. –– That the M855A1 accuracy standard is over twice as large as the Mk318 contract requirement. –– The different trajectory of M855A1 compared to M855 and M856. –– That M855A1 is NOT blind to common barriers. Note that M855A1 is an ATK/Lake City design, while Mk318 Mod0 is an ATK/Federal Cartridge design—either way ATK will be making a profit. The M855A1 program is a damning indictment of the utter FAILURE of the Army procurement system to rapidly and effectively respond to the needs of our Nation’s troops—especially in time of war. Why has it taken over a decade and hundreds of millions of tax payer funds to develop what is essentially a product improved 1960’s era Bronze Tip bullet? How come M855A1 costs twice as much as Mk318 and is also more expensive than the COTS Mk262 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip”? Why does the Army need a lead free combat round? If one is truly needed, then the already approved, safety certified, in service COTS 70 gr Optimal "browntip" seems to be a more viable solution for carbines and rifles than the problematic M855A1. While M855A1 does have better accuracy, more consistent terminal performance, and better barrier capability than M855 "green tip", in a military setting I would currently prefer Mk318 Mod0 or 70 gr "brown tip" for carbine use over M855A1. LE agencies and civilians have even better choices. |
|
thats for the write up Doc, its a shame this has happened.
im appalled they went back to the vietnam times with super dirty powder, its a shame really. could you clarify on this M855A1 is better and more consistent than M855 and Mk262 i though MK262 Mod 1 was actually a good round and worked reliably? |
|
"The Army is complying with environmental laws/regulations."
They are? You mean like when they completely contaminated Camp Edwards with the lead free "green" tungsten-nylon M855? http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080911/NEWS/809110313 http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/library/technicalreports/TR-07-5.pdf Please find one single study that shows how a reverse jacket projectile can cause lead contamination. Better yet, journey to the location of any major battle where massive quantities of fireams were used, like Gettysburg, Verdun, Normandy, etc... and check the subterranean ground water for lead contamination––woops there is none. Maybe because lead from projectiles is NOT a problem. |
| sinlessorrow––see page 6: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf; keep in mind that the Black Hills produced Mk262 uses the 77 gr Sierra Match King (SMK) OTM and is built as premium quality ammunition intended for precise long-range semi-auto rifle shots from the Mk12 rifle. It is great for its intended purpose. Mk262 has demonstrated improved accuracy, greater effective range, and more consistent performance at all distances compared to M855 when fired from current M16, Mk12, M4, HK416, and Mk18 rifles and carbines. However, despite this substantially improved performance, Mk262 still manifests the problems of poor intermediate barrier penetration and somewhat variable terminal performance inherent with the SMK design. |
|
Quoted:
What mandate requires the Army to use lead-free projectiles overseas? None that I know of. But, for at least the last 50-plus years it's been Army SOP to use the same round for training and combat. So, since eco regs require a lead-free bullet for stateside training, that's what will also be used overseas. |
|
Quoted:
"The Army is complying with environmental laws/regulations."
They are? You mean like when they completely contaminated Camp Edwards with the lead free "green" tungsten-nylon M855? Yeah, they kinda botched that one, didn't they? Traded one form of heavy metal pollution for another. 
Please find one single study that shows how a reverse jacket projectile can cause lead contamination. Better yet, journey to the location of any major battle where massive quantities of fireams were used, like Gettysburg, Verdun, Normandy, etc... and check the subterranean ground water for lead contamination––woops there is none. Maybe because lead from projectiles is NOT a problem.
Hey, don't shoot the messenger, Gary. It isn't me who says it's a problem, it's the people writing the environmental laws. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
...why is the Army insisting on lead free projectiles? The Army is complying with environmental laws/regulations. If it weren't for that mandate, I doubt very much the Army leadership would care about lead in bullets. Actually, it seems that Ordnance is (ostensibly) "getting out in front" of environmental regulations, rather than simply complying with them. Basic directives for building and maintaining impact berms include significant protections against ground water contamination, and have done so for decades. Those berms aren't just big piles of dirt, you know, but rather are built to very complex and precise standards. As Doc points out, there is no evidence of widespread ground water contamination at any range, and the few cases I've seen mentioned where anything detectable was found also included problems with subsidence under berms prior to the contamination or other similar failure of the physical structure of the berms, not a problem with the basic design. From this seat in the bleachers, I concur with Doc on "Big Army" sticking to a bad concept project, but I blame the culture of the Ordnance Corps for this perseveration; the are still civilians working there who were on the payroll as far back as the late 1970s, and Ordnance still "knows what is best for everybody". Whether this is on a project-by-project basis, or throughout the ordnance Corps, they are out to "take care of" the rest of us, |
|
The military is not exempt from silly environmental regulations, even in the extreme cases. Anyone in the nuclear weapons protection game can probably tell you of a half dozens compromises to the security of the assets because of environmental concerns.
There is also a huge problem with lack of coordination throughout each service. One of my favorites is an irradiation elimination program where tritium is being removed from systems while at the same time we buy thousands of ACOGS with tritium in them. |
|
Quoted:
"The Army is complying with environmental laws/regulations."
They are? You mean like when they completely contaminated Camp Edwards with the lead free "green" tungsten-nylon M855? http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080911/NEWS/809110313 http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/library/technicalreports/TR-07-5.pdf Please find one single study that shows how a reverse jacket projectile can cause lead contamination. Better yet, journey to the location of any major battle where massive quantities of fireams were used, like Gettysburg, Verdun, Normandy, etc... and check the subterranean ground water for lead contamination––woops there is none. Maybe because lead from projectiles is NOT a problem. Good point |
|
Why does the army try to hide so much doc?
Your post of this sounds familiar to something i read of yours before "The Army does NOT want the truth revealed about several areas of M855A1: " Sounds similiar to "The Big Army does NOT want the real test results to be seen––the dog and pony show by Brown and the other usual suspects today was a joke." Regarding to M4 dust test from 2007. I like your work but im honestly curious why the Army feels the need to hide the truth about the M4 tests and the new M855A1 tests. |
|
Here's an informative article on M855A1 development:
http://www.soldiergeek.com/milblog/2011/5/9/in-search-of-lethality-green-ammo-and-the-development-of-the.html |
|
Quoted:
Why does the army try to hide so much doc? Your post of this sounds familiar to something i read of yours before "The Army does NOT want the truth revealed about several areas of M855A1: " Sounds similiar to "The Big Army does NOT want the real test results to be seen––the dog and pony show by Brown and the other usual suspects today was a joke." Regarding to M4 dust test from 2007. I like your work but im honestly curious why the Army feels the need to hide the truth about the M4 tests and the new M855A1 tests. The Army and the Gov't hide MANY MANY things from the american people. What makes this so much different? |
|
I'd actually been looking into the M855 for a few things. I wasn't entirely sold on the concept of it either, both from a needs standpoint and a cost standpoint. The article you show kind of put the argument to bed for me for the time being.
I think it's safe to say that the article's author won't be buying M855A1 any time soon. |
| Ammo is free to the end user and you dont usually get a choise. You shoot what you are issued. M855 vs M855A1 will not be the deciding factor in any war or even any battle. Its a silly thing to get nutted up about for all but those in the business of trying to sell ammo to the military. |
|
Quoted:
Ammo is free to the end user and you dont usually get a choise. You shoot what you are issued. M855 vs M855A1 will not be the deciding factor in any war or even any battle. Its a silly thing to get nutted up about... +1 on both points. The vast majority of those complaining about M855A1 will never have to use it in combat. It reminds me of the teeth-gnashing that still goes on about the decision to not adopt .276 Pedersen way back before World War II. Jeez, people. Get over it. The Army has made their choice. Quit whining. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ammo is free to the end user and you dont usually get a choise. You shoot what you are issued. M855 vs M855A1 will not be the deciding factor in any war or even any battle. Its a silly thing to get nutted up about... +1 on both points. The vast majority of those complaining about M855A1 will never have to use it in combat. It reminds me of the teeth-gnashing that still goes on about the decision to not adopt .276 Pedersen way back before World War II. Jeez, people. Get over it. The Army has made their choice. Quit whining. I kinda feel like I have a right to complain about our tax dollars being wasted. Especially in this FUBAR economic mess were in right now. |
|
Quoted:
Ammo is free to the end user and you dont usually get a choise. You shoot what you are issued. M855 vs M855A1 will not be the deciding factor in any war or even any battle. Its a silly thing to get nutted up about for all but those in the business of trying to sell ammo to the military. Or those in charge of buying ammunition for the military, or paying the bill. If you're unconcerned with that you're welcome to avoid the conversation. |
|
I have a distant in-law who worked as a civilian engineer at Picatinney Arsenal. They have been working on "green" ammo since the late 90s and he was not impressed with it at all. The directive comes from top down so they have to make it succeed, at least on paper. |
|
Quoted:
I kinda feel like I have a right to complain about our tax dollars being wasted. Especially in this FUBAR economic mess were in right now. Sure, you have the right to complain. But, what good does it do after the money has been spent? It's not as if you can get it back. And besides, when has the military ever not wasted tax dollars?  
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I kinda feel like I have a right to complain about our tax dollars being wasted. Especially in this FUBAR economic mess were in right now. Sure, you have the right to complain. But, what good does it do after the money has been spent? It's not as if you can get it back. And besides, when has the military ever not wasted tax dollars? until the day this country get overran from foreign troops, I don't consider military spending to be a waste of money. That being said, some of the decisions they make regarding equipment are pretty damned boneheaded. The Mk318 would have been fine. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I kinda feel like I have a right to complain about our tax dollars being wasted. Especially in this FUBAR economic mess were in right now. Sure, you have the right to complain. But, what good does it do after the money has been spent? It's not as if you can get it back. And besides, when has the military ever not wasted tax dollars? until the day this country get overran from foreign troops, I don't consider military spending to be a waste of money. That being said, some of the decisions they make regarding equipment are pretty damned boneheaded. The Mk318 would have been fine. Having talked to a few guys who use M855A1 none seem to notice any real difference in how dirty it is. |
|
To sum up:
Quoted:
M855A1 is a good general purpose load for MG's M855A1 is definitely more accurate than recent M855, about par with Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip” From a general soft tissue terminal performance perspective, M855A1 is better and more consistent than M855 and Mk262, offering similar terminal performance to Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip” M855A1 does have better accuracy, more consistent terminal performance, and better barrier capability than M855 "green tip" As a general purpose round for training and combat, M855A1 sounds like a good choice. |
|
Quoted:
To sum up: Quoted:
M855A1 is a good general purpose load for MG's M855A1 is definitely more accurate than recent M855, about par with Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip” From a general soft tissue terminal performance perspective, M855A1 is better and more consistent than M855 and Mk262, offering similar terminal performance to Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip” M855A1 does have better accuracy, more consistent terminal performance, and better barrier capability than M855 "green tip" As a general purpose round for training and combat, M855A1 sounds like a good choice. Guess i missed that. Good point with those highlights it does sound like a good general purpose round |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
To sum up: Quoted:
M855A1 is a good general purpose load for MG's M855A1 is definitely more accurate than recent M855, about par with Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip” From a general soft tissue terminal performance perspective, M855A1 is better and more consistent than M855 and Mk262, offering similar terminal performance to Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip” M855A1 does have better accuracy, more consistent terminal performance, and better barrier capability than M855 "green tip" As a general purpose round for training and combat, M855A1 sounds like a good choice. Guess i missed that. Good point with those highlights it does sound like a good general purpose round Yeah all those bullet points show the ammo is decent, but the entire article was based on putting the ammo down. Also the ammo cutting down the barrel life by 50% most likely isn't anywhere near the extra cost of the more expensive M855A1 to shoot out those barrels |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To sum up: Quoted:
M855A1 is a good general purpose load for MG's M855A1 is definitely more accurate than recent M855, about par with Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip” From a general soft tissue terminal performance perspective, M855A1 is better and more consistent than M855 and Mk262, offering similar terminal performance to Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip” M855A1 does have better accuracy, more consistent terminal performance, and better barrier capability than M855 "green tip" As a general purpose round for training and combat, M855A1 sounds like a good choice. Guess i missed that. Good point with those highlights it does sound like a good general purpose round Yeah all those bullet points show the ammo is decent, but the entire article was based on putting the ammo down. Also the ammo cutting down the barrel life by 50% most likely isn't anywhere near the extra cost of the more expensive M855A1 to shoot out those barrels your right the whole write up dogs and puts down the M855A1, but according to Doc, its a big improvement to M855 and is exactly what the army wanted. 1. improved terminal ballistics similar with current bullets(mk318, 70gr TSX) 2. improved accuracy similar with current bullets 3. improved penetration over M855. i dont see the reason why it was put down so badly in the article also according to those ive spoken with(family and friends) they dont seem to notice any real difference in fouling. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To sum up: Quoted:
M855A1 is a good general purpose load for MG's M855A1 is definitely more accurate than recent M855, about par with Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip” From a general soft tissue terminal performance perspective, M855A1 is better and more consistent than M855 and Mk262, offering similar terminal performance to Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip” M855A1 does have better accuracy, more consistent terminal performance, and better barrier capability than M855 "green tip" As a general purpose round for training and combat, M855A1 sounds like a good choice. Guess i missed that. Good point with those highlights it does sound like a good general purpose round Yeah all those bullet points show the ammo is decent, but the entire article was based on putting the ammo down. Also the ammo cutting down the barrel life by 50% most likely isn't anywhere near the extra cost of the more expensive M855A1 to shoot out those barrels your right the whole write up dogs and puts down the M855A1, but according to Doc, its a big improvement to M855 and is exactly what the army wanted. 1. improved terminal ballistics similar with current bullets(mk318, 70gr TSX) 2. improved accuracy similar with current bullets 3. improved penetration over M855. i dont see the reason why it was put down so badly in the article also according to those ive spoken with(family and friends) they dont seem to notice any real difference in fouling. Because it is not $32 million better than the MK318. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To sum up: Quoted:
M855A1 is a good general purpose load for MG's M855A1 is definitely more accurate than recent M855, about par with Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip” From a general soft tissue terminal performance perspective, M855A1 is better and more consistent than M855 and Mk262, offering similar terminal performance to Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip” M855A1 does have better accuracy, more consistent terminal performance, and better barrier capability than M855 "green tip" As a general purpose round for training and combat, M855A1 sounds like a good choice. Guess i missed that. Good point with those highlights it does sound like a good general purpose round Yeah all those bullet points show the ammo is decent, but the entire article was based on putting the ammo down. Also the ammo cutting down the barrel life by 50% most likely isn't anywhere near the extra cost of the more expensive M855A1 to shoot out those barrels your right the whole write up dogs and puts down the M855A1, but according to Doc, its a big improvement to M855 and is exactly what the army wanted. 1. improved terminal ballistics similar with current bullets(mk318, 70gr TSX) 2. improved accuracy similar with current bullets 3. improved penetration over M855. i dont see the reason why it was put down so badly in the article also according to those ive spoken with(family and friends) they dont seem to notice any real difference in fouling. Because it is not $32 million better than the MK318. that is a good point, Doc mentioned in response to my question on the other site that cost and pressure are the main issues of M855A1 |
| Uh...M855A1 may be an acceptable GP load for a LMG, as in linked ammo for an M249 SAW, but it is NOT a good load for a carbine like the M4 or a rifle like the M16. Cost for the total Big Army "green" ammo program is FAR in excess of the 32 mil noted in the article. Reported per cartridge cost for M855A1 is triple that for M855, over double that of Mk318, and at least 25% more than that of Mk262 or browntip. Not to mention that M855A1 still cannot be produced on the SCAMP machinery and is instead forced to be built on the old, inefficient, expensive BAM. How exactly is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in tax payer funding for a new lead free combat load anything but fraud, waste, and abuse...especially since the safety certified, JAG approved, combat proven, lead-free COTS browntip is already in the DOD system. How is it possible that it has taken over a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars in tax payer provided funding to produce a new 5.56mm combat load...this is a simple technology with NO moving parts! Keep in mind that the entire 6.8 mm SPC program cost the USG only $5000 in R&D funding to develop. Both SOST and Mk262 cost far less than 1 million. Better yet, in 1940, the prototype P51 Mustang, a sophisticated machine with thousands of parts, successfully flew just 178 days after the initial order had been placed. Now in the 21st century, despite computer modling, the use of CAD/CAM, computerized inventory control and tracking of parts, something as simple as a new combat cartridge has taken over a decade to get introduced. If such glacial procurement had occurred during WWII, the war would have ended before any new weapons were fielded... |
|
So I have a question.
What is the point of "green" ammo? 99.99% of ammo is shot outside at mounds of dirt that already have tons of lead in them? It's not like we are walking around northern California shooting anything that moves and leaving leaded gut piles for spotted owls to eat. WTF? |
|
After reviewing all of this, it's my impression that the M855A1 project has been, shall we say, without a unified aim. It looks like it was originally supposed to generate a direct replacement for the M855 that was non-toxic and had performance that was at least as good as the original, but from what I can gather, it has only barely met the former requirement. While it seems that the bullet has better terminal performance, it looks like it costs a WHOLE LOT more per projectile than a basic OTM-type bullet would, without significantly outperforming such bullets. The article points out that, while the new bullet does better in soft penetration, it doesn't defeat SAPI body armor (if the bad guys spend some bucks for protection, our guys are stuck) nor is it barrier blind.
I think we could have had a tremendous, week-long machine gun party, with steaks and quality drinks all around for a lot less than $32mil, and not have wound up with a bullet that costs a lot without doing more. |
|
Quoted:
To sum up: Quoted:
M855A1 is a good general purpose load for MG's M855A1 is definitely more accurate than recent M855, about par with Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip” From a general soft tissue terminal performance perspective, M855A1 is better and more consistent than M855 and Mk262, offering similar terminal performance to Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip” M855A1 does have better accuracy, more consistent terminal performance, and better barrier capability than M855 "green tip" As a general purpose round for training and combat, M855A1 sounds like a good choice. No! not for the M4 |
|
Gentlemen,
It's an election year. This bunny hugger friendly round costs substantially more than the MK318 round that is currently in the system. It's less effective. It increases wear on the M4, thereby decreasing the service life of the M4. This will increase the cost of issuing the M4 (paying to refurbish/replace worn M4's). The amount of money spent on the eco-friendly round is staggering! Especially during this time of budge cuts at the DOD. If everyone took five minutes away from the internet and wrote your Congressman about this topic. Why is the Army so intent on increasing their cost for ammunition compared to the Marine Corps? Write your Congressmen. I don't have an issue paying for the best ammunition for the mission at hand. I have a huge issue spending tax dollars to finance someone's pet project so they can use it to further their career. Remember, it's an election year... |
|
One way to get another perspective when judging the succcesfulness of M855A1 cartridge, is to compare it to it's foreign rivals. Especially to russian 5.45x39mm 7N10 cartridge. It's a challenging goal trying to design a general purpose cartridge, which combines good terminal ballistics AND penetration capabilities. I'm sure that similar R&D has been done in other countries too and it would be interesting to know their results.
Side-by-side comparsion in: - Accuracy, in-flight ballistics - Terminal ballistics in ballistic gelatin - Penetration capabilities in steel and medium barriers - Economical factors, price per unit, ease of manufacture - Use of rare and special materials (strategic resources) PS. When comparing to the western countries, Russians have quite different mindset and logics when they develop their military equipement. In their own respect. I think it would be extremely interesting to see comparing results between M855A1 and 7N10. 
|
|
Quoted:
Why is the Army so intent on increasing their cost for ammunition compared to the Marine Corps? The intent is not to increase ammo cost; it is to field a lead-free, general purpose round suitable for training and full-spectrum warfare, and to be used in carbines, rifles and LMGs. The Mk318 is none of those; it is a lead-core, special purpose round that (AFAIK) is not used for training, but is employed only for counter-insurgency operations in the Afghan theatre, and is not used in LMGs. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - M855A1 article (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor