AR Sponsor
Posted: 10/20/2012 6:05:34 PM EDT
|
I have heard arguments on why it's a great bullet and arguments on its a crappy bullet.
What do you guys think? Good Increased lethality in soft targets over m855 Flatter trajectory over m855 Better moa over m855 Reduced cost over m855 Improved performance with m4 platform Improved penetration over m855 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFoQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aschq.army.mil%2Fac%2Faais%2Fioc%2FLCAAP%2FIndustry_Day%2F634272332137343750.pdf&ei=xlKDUIzDLeL00gGH4oHYDg&usg=AFQjCNGszhuEVtuULbOIlJB_yp7LpAuOAw https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CGYQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fusarmorment.com%2Fpdf%2FM855A1.pdf&ei=xlKDUIzDLeL00gGH4oHYDg&usg=AFQjCNHff-_qOJQThY8r0P_0mbAUz0bWpw http://www.soldiergeek.com/milblog/2012/3/14/guns-ammo-on-m855a1-yawn.html Bad Will destroy barrel life by 50% Worse moa Will cost more http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/03/07/m855a1-should-it-be-the-new-round-for-soldiers-and-marines/ So with these arguments would you feel more comfortable carrying the m855 or the a1? If those were the only two choices, and you were in a hostile environment like Afghanistan. |
|
Quoted:
I have heard arguments on why it's a great bullet and arguments on its a crappy bullet. What do you guys think? Good Increased lethality in soft targets over m855 Flatter trajectory over m855 Better moa over m855 Reduced cost over m855 Improved performance with m4 platform Improved penetration over m855 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFoQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aschq.army.mil%2Fac%2Faais%2Fioc%2FLCAAP%2FIndustry_Day%2F634272332137343750.pdf&ei=xlKDUIzDLeL00gGH4oHYDg&usg=AFQjCNGszhuEVtuULbOIlJB_yp7LpAuOAw https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CGYQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fusarmorment.com%2Fpdf%2FM855A1.pdf&ei=xlKDUIzDLeL00gGH4oHYDg&usg=AFQjCNHff-_qOJQThY8r0P_0mbAUz0bWpw http://www.soldiergeek.com/milblog/2012/3/14/guns-ammo-on-m855a1-yawn.html Bad Will destroy barrel life by 50% Worse moa Will cost more http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/03/07/m855a1-should-it-be-the-new-round-for-soldiers-and-marines/ So with these arguments would you feel more comfortable carrying the m855 or the a1? If those were the only two choices, and you were in a hostile environment like Afghanistan. You have a conflict written in the red above in your post. I think M855 will do me and any civilian just fine, heck the M855 already has more energy than a 44 Magnum what more do you want, dead is dead. The barrel life thing is enough for me to steer clear of the A1, The government can afford to buy barrels all day long I can't. |
|
I think the test of time will end up showing that there was too much emotion and not enough objective engineering, especially for what the whole project cost.
Those costs have to be amortized across the ammo produced, which is already high. Do we need to keep looking for the best possible ammo for the warfighters, yes. Do we need that much politicizing when we do it, no. |
|
Quoted:
You have a conflict written in the red above in your post. I think M855 will do me and any civilian just fine, heck the M855 already has more energy than a 44 Magnum what more do you want, dead is dead. The barrel life thing is enough for me to steer clear of the A1, The government can afford to buy barrels all day long I can't. This is silly. The government can't afford new barrels twice as often. Sure they will happly buy em. The round is better then m855 in a lot of ways. defending its stupid high pressure and marginally better performence because of the governments willingness to spend money is dumb. "This new tank is awesome, but when you fire the gun more then five times the tank explodes." the comparable reply is "we'll just buy more tanks" when it should be "design something that works well without the five shot blow up" |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have a conflict written in the red above in your post. I think M855 will do me and any civilian just fine, heck the M855 already has more energy than a 44 Magnum what more do you want, dead is dead. The barrel life thing is enough for me to steer clear of the A1, The government can afford to buy barrels all day long I can't. This is silly. The government can't afford new barrels twice as often. Sure they will happly buy em. The round is better then m855 in a lot of ways. defending its stupid high pressure and marginally better performence because of the governments willingness to spend money is dumb. "This new tank is awesome, but when you fire the gun more then five times the tank explodes." the comparable reply is "we'll just buy more tanks" when it should be "design something that works well without the five shot blow up" Lol, your rough on an old man. I was not saying its right to make ammo that wears out the troops barrels , I was just saying the government has more money than me. Besides they are going to either give it away to the entitlement people or spend it on supplies for the military or even give away money to countries that hate us. I say spend it here in the USA and create jobs. |
|
Quoted:
Ok but what about the ballistics of it? Do you guys think it is superior to the M855? Hard to say for now. Till it becomes more widely distributed and independently tested, the jury is still out. In the hands of some testers, it has shown good performance. However, without trying to imply anything negative about these tests, it is not the same as having independent widespread testing. |
|
Quoted:
Well the Marines are using MK318 right now. So I've heard however my buddies in Afghanistan who are infantry can not get them. I have been told the co asked for them but they never got them. They all said (different 11 units) that they never were issued them and are still using m855. I was thinking maybe because they are newer but it's been like 4 years. Anyway I thought the mk318 was just a placeholder until the new bullet comes out. Then the USMC was goin to replace it. Maybe that's what they are doing? |
|
I'm not sure....
When I showed a box of the brown boxed MK318 my friend was surprised by that I was able to buy it and said that it was what he was issued around fall 2010. I assumed it would be common by now! Anyway I bet which round turns out being better is the one the USMC will use. |
|
Quoted:
I have heard arguments on why it's a great bullet and arguments on its a crappy bullet. What do you guys think? Good Increased lethality in soft targets over m855 Flatter trajectory over m855 Better moa over m855 Reduced cost over m855 Improved performance with m4 platform Improved penetration over m855 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFoQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aschq.army.mil%2Fac%2Faais%2Fioc%2FLCAAP%2FIndustry_Day%2F634272332137343750.pdf&ei=xlKDUIzDLeL00gGH4oHYDg&usg=AFQjCNGszhuEVtuULbOIlJB_yp7LpAuOAw https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CGYQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fusarmorment.com%2Fpdf%2FM855A1.pdf&ei=xlKDUIzDLeL00gGH4oHYDg&usg=AFQjCNHff-_qOJQThY8r0P_0mbAUz0bWpw http://www.soldiergeek.com/milblog/2012/3/14/guns-ammo-on-m855a1-yawn.html Bad Will destroy barrel life by 50% Worse moa Will cost more http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/03/07/m855a1-should-it-be-the-new-round-for-soldiers-and-marines/ So with these arguments would you feel more comfortable carrying the m855 or the a1? If those were the only two choices, and you were in a hostile environment like Afghanistan. Wrong Barrel life is around the same as M855. However one of our test barrels reached 20000 rounds and still shot a 5 inch mean radius group at 300 yards. Bolt life on the other hand is another story due to the increased pressure. Wrong again M855A1 is not yaw dependent for stabilization so accuracy is improved even with a barrel that would be shot out by normal standards. |
| the mk318 is in my opinion, a very capable round. I dont know how it measures up to the new m855A1 but those high pressures is just as destructive as shooting fully automatic from a standard barrel...I dont bump fire my rifle because of the intense friction that is associated with shooting multiple rounds out of my barrel nor am I interested in shooting a super-hot round. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have heard arguments on why it's a great bullet and arguments on its a crappy bullet. What do you guys think? Good Increased lethality in soft targets over m855 Flatter trajectory over m855 Better moa over m855 Reduced cost over m855 Improved performance with m4 platform Improved penetration over m855 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFoQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aschq.army.mil%2Fac%2Faais%2Fioc%2FLCAAP%2FIndustry_Day%2F634272332137343750.pdf&ei=xlKDUIzDLeL00gGH4oHYDg&usg=AFQjCNGszhuEVtuULbOIlJB_yp7LpAuOAw https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CGYQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fusarmorment.com%2Fpdf%2FM855A1.pdf&ei=xlKDUIzDLeL00gGH4oHYDg&usg=AFQjCNHff-_qOJQThY8r0P_0mbAUz0bWpw http://www.soldiergeek.com/milblog/2012/3/14/guns-ammo-on-m855a1-yawn.html Bad Will destroy barrel life by 50% Worse moa Will cost more http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/03/07/m855a1-should-it-be-the-new-round-for-soldiers-and-marines/ So with these arguments would you feel more comfortable carrying the m855 or the a1? If those were the only two choices, and you were in a hostile environment like Afghanistan. You have a conflict written in the red above in your post. I think M855 will do me and any civilian just fine, heck the M855 already has more energy than a 44 Magnum what more do you want, dead is dead. The barrel life thing is enough for me to steer clear of the A1, The government can afford to buy barrels all day long I can't. I believe m855 does not fragment consistently, and its even worse 5-100 yards. |
|
Quoted:
That is what the articles said. I have never seen the a1 so I am just looking for answers. Do you have experience in the a1, if so can you enlighten on the subject? I have tested hundreds of thousands of rounds of M855A1. If you we're asking me. Do the benefits outweigh the cost that is still up in the air. |
|
Quoted:
it didnt impress me. after all the press and all the hype.......I just dont get it. it was OK stuff, we stuck mostly to our stocks of M855 I'm just wondering what kind of tests did you guys do that it didn't impress? Did you get to shoot it different metals and stuff? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
it didnt impress me. after all the press and all the hype.......I just dont get it. it was OK stuff, we stuck mostly to our stocks of M855 I'm just wondering what kind of tests did you guys do that it didn't impress? Did you get to shoot it different metals and stuff? we didnt get much of a chance to test it much, penetration on a steel plate at varying distances....we were limited on distance unfortunately. but at 25M and out to about 100, it was about the same as M855. noticed a bit of a change in POI on weapons zeroed with M855 ( I think the change had more to do with temp, and elevation, and the fact that between zero qual and deplyment was 2 months  )
but the ammo was blamed. as for going bang and killing talibs when you squeeze the trigger, it did the job. our 1SG was against the stuff (because its new) so we didnt use much into the last summer fighting (2011) I see what Uncle sam is trying to do...............build a newer more modern bullet, doing the next leap in technology. from my grunt perspective i would have just stick to M855, or go to the heavier 77gr round |
|
The people stating it has a worse accuracy are comparing the max specified accuracy requirement of the M855A1 with the actual performance of the M855. Not the same thing. They both have the same accuracy requirement. And they both beat it by a wide margin.
The penetration of steel was not part of the improvement in the round. It's performance in soft tissue on the other side of the steel or glass was what's important, and it does do that better. The higher velocity alone helps with that somewhat. It was an attempt to make a more barrier blind round... barrier blind doe not mean it penetrated better or more. It means that it acts the same in a person whether it punches through glass or not. No such thing as a truly barrier blind load, but the MK318 is a definite improvement over either the M855 or M85A1. The A1 is still more consistent than the M855 though. Only testing on people or at least properly prepared gelatin (properly prepared gelatin will yield mostly consistent results from test to test) will show one round or the other as better. |
|
Quoted:
The people stating it has a worse accuracy are comparing the max specified accuracy requirement of the M855A1 with the actual performance of the M855. Not the same thing. They both have the same accuracy requirement. And they both beat it by a wide margin. The penetration of steel was not part of the improvement in the round. It's performance in soft tissue on the other side of the steel or glass was what's important, and it does do that better. The higher velocity alone helps with that somewhat. It was an attempt to make a more barrier blind round... barrier blind doe not mean it penetrated better or more. It means that it acts the same in a person whether it punches through glass or not. No such thing as a truly barrier blind load, but the MK318 is a definite improvement over either the M855 or M85A1. The A1 is still more consistent than the M855 though. Only testing on people or at least properly prepared gelatin (properly prepared gelatin will yield mostly consistent results from test to test) will show one round or the other as better. InfiniteGrim did the gelatin test with the few rounds he was able to obtain. Posted the pics, results here. It looked very impressive in gel. Very impressive. |
| Anything will look impressive at 10 yards. M855 looks as impressive as M193 at that range, it's the distance that separates the two in terminal performance. Otherwise, one wouldn't know there was a fragmentation threshold difference between an 11" barrel firing M855 at 10 yards, or a 20" barrel firing M193 (or tap 75 grain) at 10 yards. |
AR Sponsor