Army Tests Green Ammo

well we (canadian military ) have just tested it in maryland. it does go through targets well but it does not yaw in flesh. its like being shot with a needle. little hole in and a little hole out. no massive wounds. so it fail to take the target down. besides...its a bullet, what are you going to do? die of lead poisoning? the whole arguement is do we want lead in bullets? the countries who use this sort of ammo have been seeing more cases of heavy metal poisoning in the troops that use this ammo, unlike lead cored rounds.
 
angrysoldier said:
green ammo is crap. if you want ill tell you all about it.
Click to expand...

You may want to disclose your information to the US military as they speed up issue and all forward deployed troops are turning in their old M855 for the new "green" M855A1 because they seem to feel the real world performance is not "crap" as you so eloquently put it.
 
critter928 said:
You may want to disclose your information to the US military as they speed up issue and all forward deployed troops are turning in their old M855 for the new "green" M855A1 because they seem to feel the real world performance is not "crap" as you so eloquently put it.
Click to expand...

and how much of this have you shot? none? the decision is political not anything else. ive seen it in use and tested it in use. have you? i dident think so.

cheers!
angry
 
angrysoldier said:
and how much of this have you shot? none? the decision is political not anything else. ive seen it in use and tested it in use. have you? i dident think so.

cheers!
angry
Click to expand...

Well, I see you are living upto your self given "angry" title ;)

You need to chill out and learn to give your "informed opinion" without condescension and attitude. I am sure your trial exposure with it was not what you wanted it to be, but it sure seems to be up to the standards of the US mil, and I will bet you a days pay it is sure to be soon up to CF standards, and not just for political reasons.

I respect your opinion in having tested it on a range, but I would like you to answer why all those on the US side of the testing (both on the front line using it in combat and in testing) say it is everything the M855 is and more, including against soft targets? What kind of soft targets did you use it on?

As for being lead free, that is a huge deal as it is a major cost and issue on DND ranges having to be reclaiming every X thousand rounds that are fired into the butts (which is not cheap). Calling it purely political is a little bit naive as it is a pretty big deal in the grand scheme of things, economically, and on the front lines.
 
Interesting take on how the M855A1 is actually better on soft tragets than even the M80 7.62 round, and way ahead of the M855 or SS109 we use in Canada.

://www.army.mil/-news/2010/11/26/48657-evolution-of-the-m855a1-enhanced-performance-round/

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.
Click to expand...

This makes me think that it is truly a evolutionary step forward, just as the SS109/M855 round was with its' penetrator.
 
Note what Dr. Gary K. Roberts (DocGKR) has to say about M855A1 here:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=60560

and here:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=22379

Dr. Roberts is one of the foremost authorities on wound ballistics in the world.

The real source of lead pollution is aerosolized lead from primers and bullet bases. This could be easily fixed with lead-free primers and enclosed base bullets (such as Mk 318 or Mk 262).

We must not forget that this is the same army that developed the disastrous Sgt. York self-propelled AA gun.
 
critter928 said:
As for being lead free, that is a huge deal as it is a major cost and issue on DND ranges having to be reclaiming every X thousand rounds that are fired into the butts (which is not cheap). Calling it purely political is a little bit naive as it is a pretty big deal in the grand scheme of things, economically, and on the front lines.
Click to expand...

Its kind of sad to see you have so much faith that the govt will do what is right instead of what will win it political good will and money.

lots of programs have been pushed through that we nothing more then political, and lots of programs have been canceled for the same reasons even though it made more sense long term to do the opposite of what the govt decided.
 
North Eastern Arms said:
Its kind of sad to see you have so much faith that the govt will do what is right instead of what will win it political good will and money.

lots of programs have been pushed through that we nothing more then political, and lots of programs have been canceled for the same reasons even though it made more sense long term to do the opposite of what the govt decided.
Click to expand...

Setting aside for the moment the question of the round's effectiveness...

Right would be adopting a lead-free bullet so as to reduce pollution.

Self-Interest would be adopting a lead-free bullet so as to reduce clean-up costs.

Political Expediency would be adopting a lead-free bullet so as to be able to make political hay from it.

In this case, whether it was a moral decision, a purely economic one or one intended purely to make itself look good, the environmental result would be the same.

So, pray, which was it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom