M855: question for the experts

RevolverRodger

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 98.6%
70   1   0
Location
Somewhere in QC
Ok, I don't know how many times I saw an article on the internet saying that the M855 load lacks lethality. I'm curious to see what the experts have to say about this (soldiers / PMC / police).
Real world info please.
 
Mil 5.56 is a maiming round, a "humnane" round. I think we do need more stopping power....that being said Im not willing to carry any more weight. The medbag, 10 mags, 5 liters of water, body armour with plates ,helmet, tac vest, pistol etc etc is enough. Were maxed out in Afghanistan, add the heat on top....
 
The 5.56 is NOT a "maiming" round. The original 5.56 55gr was designed and tested at 200m and less (think Vietnam jungles and "future" urban conflicts). The round was too light, the powder was changed and M193 was replaced with 62gr M855 with a steel penetrator. As I understand it, the optimal distance for kinetic energy transfer is still 150 metres for immediate incapacitation, and it is very lethal out to 300m after which the lethality drops off as the round travels. This is caused by it being a full metal jacket round. The round has a balance point which is off centre, so when it hits something it is designed to yaw and spin creating a large cavity. At farther distances the lack of energy means that the bullet won't yaw as much. BUT, that doesn't mean it isn't lethal. Targets can be hit with good optics out to 700 or 800 metres (not all the time, but they can be) which is beyond the optimal range, but I would not volunteer to be shot by it.

Some of the complaints about the M855 round first started after the U.S. was in Somalia, and it was found that there were two important considerations.
1. someone on drugs might keep moving like a zombie
2. very thin targets (thin human torsos) have less resistance to cause a round to yaw unless it hits something solid, hence the "through and through"
All of these statements about the round being ineffective also have to consider-
was the target moving?
was the person under the influence of drugs?
did the shooter really hit?
how good were the optics on the rifle?

I won't complain about the round as it was intended. I haven't seen anyone hit with one round and it not work. What usually happens is there is a volume of fire. Longer distances require larger rounds, not a surprise.

Once you consider how much additional training is required to have all soldiers issued with a larger round and be trained to employ out to maximum effective range (7.62 with optics can really go far), the 5.56 seems to be a good choice until some definitive research and exhaustive testing has been done on some other round like 6.8 or 6.5.
 
***Rant Warning***

Mil 5.56 is a maiming round, a "humnane" round.

Yeah, and it was designed to tumble through the air too. :rolleyes:

The US and then NATO went to 5.56x45mm because it's light, so more could be carried, and it's more controllable in burst and automatic fire. That's it.

There was an experiment in doctrine that called for squads of automatic riflemen. Automatic fire was supposed to mean that armies could be equipped to fight the Soviet hoardes with minimal marksmanship training. It eventually changed when it was realized that automatic fire wasn't as effective as it was hoped to be. That experiment hadn't yet run it's course before the assault rifle, with it's smaller, lighter (automatic fire needs more bullets) and more controllable ammo, was introduced. It was better suited to the new doctrine than the M14 and other battle rifles of the time.

The whole 'wound one guy and it removes three men from the battlefield' idea sounds good, but it's folly for anyone to believe, and a dangerous assumption for any commander to make.
It's myth fostered by the ignorant. No enemy ever stopped their attack because they ran out of the proper ratio of stretcher bearers to wounded, because we were using 'maiming rounds'.


For Revolver Rodger: Shot placement affects lethality better than bullet weight and design.
 
Last edited:
The M855 62gr round was chosen to improve performance of the M249 SAW/Minimi/C9. The terminal effects are similar to M193 but the increased mass offers increased terminal range. Regardless, I have yet to meet anyone willing to let me shoot them to find out.

TDC
 
Most of the posts I've read here (by folks who've actually used the round on people in Afghanistan) indicate that if the shooter does his job, the round does it's job, within it's intended boundaries. If you need to cause injury or death at extended ranges, a weapons system other than an infantry rifle is generally preferred (from all reports the 25mm is a winner for this). Posts like this (but rarely posted as questions) have come up quite a few times in the last couple of years and generally speaking the reponses run along the same lines.
 
Canadiangunslinger has it right. The 5.56mm round was designed to be an assault rifle round, effective to around 250-300m. Beyond that range (and less than that from short barrelled carbines), it lacks sufficient velocity to fragment.

Note that it is not the yawing tumbling by itself, all spitzer shaped rifle bullets do that. The increased lethality occurs because it yaws sooner than larger/slower bullets, and at high velocity, the jacket is not strong enough to withstand the stresses imposed on it, so it fragments.

Usually it breaks apart at the canelure(sp?). The base and tip flatten out, shedding bits of jacket and lead fragments. The multiple wound tracks of these fragments sometimes join up when these tears elongate under cavitation. There is a velocity threshold below which this fragmentation and cavitation tearing no longer takes place.

Contrary to poular mythology, rifling pitch/twist rate has very little to do with it. The SS109/M855 is a little heavier, and thus has more mass to fragment and is just as, if not more lethal than the old M-193.

Part of the problem is that we now add optics to everything, including the C-9, which allows us to make hits at longer range than the cartidge is really designed for. Also, hit placement counts for a lot. No bullet is a magic death ray. Unless sufficient damage is done to the CNS, the only real wounding mechanism that counts is rapid blood loss and shock. If nothing vital is hit, any cartridge/bullet combo can fail. There were stories in the Falklands of multiple hits with 7.62 NATO not dropping the target instantly.
 
The M855 62gr round was chosen to improve performance of the M249 SAW/Minimi/C9. The terminal effects are similar to M193 but the increased mass offers increased terminal range. Regardless, I have yet to meet anyone willing to let me shoot them to find out.
X2!! lot of folks with very strong opinions on why certain rounds are inadequate but a real shortage of volunteers to stand in front of one in order to prove their point. Facts is .. they will all ruin your day if you happen to be the intended target ... and NONE behave in a completely predicable fashion when they strike a soft organic target.

(edited to add - I draw all my conclusions from hunting - which I am barely adequate at!)
 
I know the source might not be everyone's favourite, but here is an interesting link with some info for anyone who hasn't seen it before. (take out the big space after "http", the word "ammo" and before the word "project" and paste it in your browser)

http ://ammo .ar15.com/ project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#.223
 
smallcal.jpg


wund5000.jpg


http://www.bajaarizona.org/fklr/fklr.html

Not everything that may apply, but reading the above will give you a far better understanding of what happens downrange.

NS
 
Fackler published all the studies on fragmentation and velocity in the late 80's.

SS109 bullets and the original 55grs were engineered much earlier. The SS109 is a product of the late 70's by FN.

So let's stop putting 1 + 1 =3 : that "5.56 is engineered to fragment at 2700 fps" because it is not. They just figured that out after the fact. From what I gathered, they did do ballistic gel testing on SS109 in the early 80's when they were testing the M16A2. However, the mechanism was not studied and published until Fackler came abroad.
 
Wasn't one of the design criteria of the M855 a requirement to pierce steel helmets at 400 yards? I could have sworn I read that, but now I can't find it. Anyone clarify?
 
Interesting graph/pictures ... One does wonder at what kind of a range a typical 5.56 bullet would have slowed down below the 2000fps range (at which point it ceases to fragment and as such would lose much of it's effectiveness). It would also have been interesting to see gelatin-block tests performed at a full range of velocities to see how it affects the wound cavity and behavior of a projectile at impact.

Same for the 7.62 x 39 M43 round just for the heck of it.
 
I have no opinion about this, as I'm not a soldier and a .22 will punch paper as well as a 30-06, but I seem to remember reading in some US gun mag that US troops were having a hard time killing bad guys who happened to be speeding at them in cars because the bullets weren't all that good at staying lethal with all that metal and glass in the way.

I've never tried to stop a carload of suicide bombers, so I have no idea whether this is legit. But it's part of the reason so many US troops on the ground over there are talking about bigger bullets.

Are they just whining more than our boys do, or are they doing something significant;ly different? I don't remember reading anything similar from Canadian troops.
 
I have no opinion about this, as I'm not a soldier and a .22 will punch paper as well as a 30-06, but I seem to remember reading in some US gun mag that US troops were having a hard time killing bad guys who happened to be speeding at them in cars because the bullets weren't all that good at staying lethal with all that metal and glass in the way.

I've never tried to stop a carload of suicide bombers, so I have no idea whether this is legit. But it's part of the reason so many US troops on the ground over there are talking about bigger bullets.

Are they just whining more than our boys do, or are they doing something significant;ly different? I don't remember reading anything similar from Canadian troops.


The differences is the US troops less the USMC are issued a 14.5 in barrelled M4 carbine while Canadian troops are issued with 20in barrelled C7A2 Rifles and 16 in barrelled C8A2/3 FTHB Carbines.
A 20inch barrelled rifle has no problem penetrating vehs or walls out to 200m,a carbine not so much even the 16inch barrelled C8A2 FTHB will not reliably penetrate both sides of a cinder block.
Then again I have seen a single shot car stop with a 9mm pistol at 50m,it's all about shot placement. For my part I have yet to see a bad guy not go down when hit in a vital area with the 5.56mm SS-109/C77/M855,shot placement is the answer not the caliber of the weapon.
 
Back
Top Bottom