M855A1 ammunition...
- Thread starter cyclone
- Start date
I saw that earlier today.
They have another video or two comparing M193 to M855 as well.
Rifle velocities out of full length barrels.
Nothing so big a difference in penetration.
Loss of accuracy compared to M193.
Higher pressures and more wear from the 'newer' ammo.
If anything, they have done more to convince me not to waste too much effort seeking the 62gr ammo
and stick to the 55gr fmj and the better costs.
They have another video or two comparing M193 to M855 as well.
Rifle velocities out of full length barrels.
Nothing so big a difference in penetration.
Loss of accuracy compared to M193.
Higher pressures and more wear from the 'newer' ammo.
If anything, they have done more to convince me not to waste too much effort seeking the 62gr ammo
and stick to the 55gr fmj and the better costs.
Doubt you could find any M855A1 in Canada.
DaveMachine
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- That one place with a cowboy complex
I remember hearing about prohibitions on use of M855A1 within the CAF.
Thoughts/comments, especially regarding firearm-breakage?
(Not seeking comments on Canada-legality, obviously..)
There is nothing that will penetrate Level 4 armour unless the tip is TC. The official spec of the M855A1 is pretty impressive. if the government needs to replace small arms more frequently, so be it.
DaveMachine
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- That one place with a cowboy complex
I wouldn't be surprised about that either. I should have clarified but IIRC it was prohibited on the grounds of parts breakage but don't quote me on any of that.
I actually suspect that part of the US adopting this is also
in order to say that it is specifically AP and to ban surplus sale to the public.
Remember when they tried to ban M855?
BAE has its own version of 5.56 steel core round for the UK. More capability packing 5.56 ( and 7.62) had been set out as an objective for quite some years ago. IMI is a bit behind, but it makes sense for them to wait and see when the market goes.
The complaint about 5.56 concerning range, ability to penetrate common barriers and AP have been around for awhile. In fact, the old M80 ball is pretty poor in AP and therefore both 7.62 and 5.56 are updated in parallel.
The US, on one hand has the desire to defeat level 4 armour that can now be mass produced by the Chinese, as well as issued to the Russian in some numbers. The immediate response is the introduction of ISCR which is now dead, and now HK 417 as a S-DMR to the US army. This only works because the US now seems to be pretty dead set on mass producing tungsten carbide tipped AP round in 7.62. This is the only way to defeat a level 4 armour. Remember, Lvl 4 is to take at least one hit of 30-06 AP, that is a big chunk of harden steel going over 2800 fps. There isn't really anything bigger than 30-06 AP that a normal man can use practically as a MBR and GPMG - I guess unless someone wants to carry the GD 338 NM Medium MG.
On the other hand, 6mm SAW and carbine will be inferior to 7.62 in penetrating level 4 armour even with TC core, purely because of the amount of TC thrown down range in a 30cal envelope. And the big question is how sustainable the US can source enough tungsten to make enough small arms munition, like 2 Billion rounds a year. If there is not enough tungsten for every man, it is a compromise to give 1X or 2X 76.2 S-DMR with tungsten carbide rounds to each squad. This is probably why ISCR was a non-starter. Without TC AP rounds, 5.56 with M855A1 makes much more sense in weight to benefit trade off.
What that means, IMHO, 6mm will probably not going to make it to replace 5.56 M4 in the near future, that means M855A1 will be alive. French and German, as well as many smaller NATO countries will be sticking with 5.56 and they will desire to upgrade their 5.56 ammo at one point. It will have a better chance to make it to SAW because Minimi in 5.56 is over weighted and under powered.
Last edited:
The barrier/armor penetrating question was solved a long time ago with the M995, which is superior to the new M855A1. Armor penetrating capability is a very specialized department. M995 also doesn't have the massive overpressure issue (M855A1 is basically a proof round, there isn't a 5.56 infantry weapon designed to handle it's pressure), barrel extension/receiver damage, and all cycling components wearing out and breaking very quickly with the new M855A1.
The m855A1 also needs it's own proprietary non-STANAG magazine (tan EPM magazine) in order to avoid damaging receivers and barrel extensions and having feeding issues, it doesn't follow the STANAG standard pattern so all magazines in NATO inventory are incompatible with the M855A1. That's a massive problem, altho inconsequential compared to if the US shoves the M855A1 up everybody's throat at NATO like they did in the 50's with the 7.62x51.
The M855A1 is a hardware answer to a software problem. The caliber/weapon problem with the US Military is and has always been a marksmanship and training issue. Full stop. The Army doesn't even train soldiers on iron sight proficiency anymore.
No magic caliber, no magic bullet, no magic gun will overcome the basic fact that badly trained soldiers can't shoot. It's as simple as that.
The m855A1 also needs it's own proprietary non-STANAG magazine (tan EPM magazine) in order to avoid damaging receivers and barrel extensions and having feeding issues, it doesn't follow the STANAG standard pattern so all magazines in NATO inventory are incompatible with the M855A1. That's a massive problem, altho inconsequential compared to if the US shoves the M855A1 up everybody's throat at NATO like they did in the 50's with the 7.62x51.
The M855A1 is a hardware answer to a software problem. The caliber/weapon problem with the US Military is and has always been a marksmanship and training issue. Full stop. The Army doesn't even train soldiers on iron sight proficiency anymore.
No magic caliber, no magic bullet, no magic gun will overcome the basic fact that badly trained soldiers can't shoot. It's as simple as that.
Last edited:
Bubba Yugga
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Midwestern Ontario
"No magic caliber, no magic bullet, no magic gun will overcome the basic fact that badly trained soldiers can't shoot. It's as simple as that."
Imperial Storm Troopers...?
Imperial Storm Troopers...?
M995 is not 100% protection against all level 4 armour plates. Protection against 30-06 AP doesn't exactly translate. There is a video outthere and shows that "it depends". It appears tit won't take much to make existing armour M995 proof completely.
There is a reason the US invested tons of money on developing XM1158 AP in 7.62 along with a 8 million investment on improving the manufacturing technique of tungsten carbide core. Tungsten has high specific mass - you still need certain amount to grind through ceramics, but too much of tungsten the bullet will be flying like a rainbow, too little the bullet will be too short with ####ty ballistic co-efficient, and therefore limited range.
My guess is that 556 is limiting in creating a next level tungsten AP round - so that leaves 7.62 to work with for now. The revealing thing will be what the US has with the 6.5 in tungsten AP version, that's probably the reason they talked about next general squad automatic with "overmatching" capabilities.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
Its there if you know where to look. Its legal, just expensive.
It is not a Stanag Round, and is therefore not approved for use. While not necessarily a valid legal opinion, some Leg Ads have asserted that substituting issue ammo for non-issue ammo is comparable to "modifying" your ammo with the intent of increasing suffering, and is therefore not within the spirit of the geneva convention.
In my experience, the complaints about the short comings from 5.56 stem largely from the fact that all Nato Stanag ammo was tested and certified with 20" barrels, and most of the complaints are coming from users who prefer 12", or less barrels.
Reading your several posts together, I just wanted to point out a few things.
Your post seem to suggest that generally larger caliber projectiles with higher masses will penetrate better than smaller lighter bullets of similar construction. That isn't always the case. A lot of the methodologies used to calculate "stopping power", ie energy transfer in fluidic mediums, such as soft tissues in animals, do not translate well when talking about penetrating solid mediums, ie penetrating armour.
5.56 lead core ammo is significantly more damaging to steel plates than 7.62 lead core ammo. The smaller diameter of the round results in the transfer of energy being concentrated in a smaller surface area, which means a great probability of the transferred energy overcoming the elasticity of the steel and therefore permanently deforming (failing, usually resulting in penetration).
A 10,000g (22lb) sledgehammer impacting 0.5 m/s has orders of magnitude more energy than a 3.5 gram (55 gr) round travelling at 1,000 m/s, and yet a lead core FMJ round can penetrate what the sledgehammer will not. Its all about brisance, and a heavy for calibre 5.56 has a lot more of it than your typical 7.62 rd.
You indicate that there isn't much bigger than a 30-06 that a person can use practically. First, not sure why we are concerning ourselves with just MGs, any of the 300 WM sniper rifles can use ammo tipped with the new AP round, and simply by increasing velocity 10% you greatly increase the chances of penetration.
Regardless of performance against Level IV armour, the M855A1 gives superior penetration against a variety or targets, including concrete, glass and soft steel, as well as significantly increasing trauma to soft tissue, regardless of bullet yaw, and in conjuction with better powder, is able to generate pressure and muzzle velocity faster than the M855, resulting in better performance in all the short barrels that are now in vogue. For a lot of reasons The M855A1 is a superior round, and the US will not be abandoning it any more.
The one drawback to the round is that it is murder on indoor steel bullet traps, and a lot of the commercial ranges in the US have seen dramatically increased wear and tear on their facilities.
Here is a good document from the US Military
Last edited:
