- Thread starter adam1122
- Start date
Re: M8551A1 round - worth a read
yeah, i would like to see a comparison of the 855, 855A1, and the MK318...
yeah, i would like to see a comparison of the 855, 855A1, and the MK318...
Re: M8551A1 round - worth a read
why wont they let us flush our tax dollars down the toilet our selves?
why wont they let us flush our tax dollars down the toilet our selves?
Re: M8551A1 round - worth a read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: oosickness</div><div class="ubbcode-body">why wont they let us flush our tax dollars down the toilet our selves?</div></div>
Because we might be to tempted to keep them...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: oosickness</div><div class="ubbcode-body">why wont they let us flush our tax dollars down the toilet our selves?</div></div>
Because we might be to tempted to keep them...
Re: M8551A1 round - worth a read
Can somebody say "kickbacks" ...
Can somebody say "kickbacks" ...
Re: M8551A1 round - worth a read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pdogsbeware</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can somebody say "kickbacks" ... </div></div>
Bureacratic budget justification is perfectly legal.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pdogsbeware</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can somebody say "kickbacks" ... </div></div>
Bureacratic budget justification is perfectly legal.
Re: M8551A1 round - worth a read
An accuracy of 5.5 MOA? I guess they don't want our troops hitting the bad guys in the Middle-East... just scare em!
An accuracy of 5.5 MOA? I guess they don't want our troops hitting the bad guys in the Middle-East... just scare em!
Re: M8551A1 round - worth a read
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Xshot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">An accuracy of 5.5 MOA? I guess they don't want our troops hitting the bad guys in the Middle-East... just scare em! </div></div>
If we kill them, that will make the rest of their family angry at us. If we scare them, they will tell the rest of their family to watch out for us.
Yeah, right.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Xshot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">An accuracy of 5.5 MOA? I guess they don't want our troops hitting the bad guys in the Middle-East... just scare em! </div></div>
If we kill them, that will make the rest of their family angry at us. If we scare them, they will tell the rest of their family to watch out for us.
Yeah, right.
Re: M8551A1 round - worth a read
You would expect the people that are more concerned with the "green" movement to not care if the round works or not...the end justifies the means. If the soldiers can't hit anything in Afghanistan with it no problem, at least it will be green - right?
You would expect the people that are more concerned with the "green" movement to not care if the round works or not...the end justifies the means. If the soldiers can't hit anything in Afghanistan with it no problem, at least it will be green - right?
Re: M8551A1 round - worth a read
A proof load is nowhere near 63,000psi. Proof loads are roughly double what the normal pressures are. The author has some good points but also some misguided info.
A proof load is nowhere near 63,000psi. Proof loads are roughly double what the normal pressures are. The author has some good points but also some misguided info.
Re: M8551A1 round - worth a read
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a549416.pdf
http://www.pica.army.mil/eVoice/article.aspx?ArticleID=1872
Standard pressure testing involves three magazines on full auto(90 rounds). Then measuring the chamber temperatures on a simulated round in the chamber.Then at the peak temperatures firing hundreds of rounds to measure actual chamber pressure. This doesn't include firing several hundred rounds to ensure that a live round in the chamber remains safe.
"This work has borne fruit, he says, in that it is now superior in performance to the M855 and even the 7.62mm M80 round on soft targets. While the M855 bullet depends on either yaw or fragmentation inside the target for maximum transfer of kinetic energy, the EPR does not, said Lt Col Woods, but neither is it designed to expand since that would be against the laws of war. Instead, the EPR reacts consistently each time, regardless of angle of yaw.
Against hard targets, the M855 A1 is clearly superior to the M855 even judging by the fairly approximate figures that Lt Col Woods presented. Fired from an M4 carbine, the M855 will penetrate a 3/8-inch steel “battle barrier surrogate” from a range of about 150 m, but the EPR will do so in excess of 350 m. And whereas the M855 will not penetrate a concrete masonry unit, the EPR will get through such a barrier from a few tens of metres. Fired from the longer barrelled M16, the results are even better with the EPR penetrating the steel barrier at almost 400 m and the concrete masonry unit at comfortably more than 80 m. The EPR’s penetration of the 3/8-inch steel barrier is significantly better than that of the 7.62mm M80, and it will also penetrate some types of lower quality body armour. The M855 also performs better from the longer barrelled weapon, although it still won’t penetrate the concrete barrier.
The EPR is also said to be slightly more accurate than the M855, but its ballistics are so close, says Lt Col Woods, that soldiers are not required to re-zero their weapons, although there is some benefit in doing so. Soldiers have noticed that it is possible to spin the tip of some bullets, but this is not a fault, he insists, just a characteristic. “If anything, I’ve seen these rounds fire slightly more accurately.” The small gap noticeable between the tip and the edge of the jacket is also quite normal."
Above from: http://sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=808
Just because the media has labeled this a "green" round. I'd suggest that everybody not use a Guns and Ammo story written by a LAPD part time author as fact.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a549416.pdf
http://www.pica.army.mil/eVoice/article.aspx?ArticleID=1872
Standard pressure testing involves three magazines on full auto(90 rounds). Then measuring the chamber temperatures on a simulated round in the chamber.Then at the peak temperatures firing hundreds of rounds to measure actual chamber pressure. This doesn't include firing several hundred rounds to ensure that a live round in the chamber remains safe.
"This work has borne fruit, he says, in that it is now superior in performance to the M855 and even the 7.62mm M80 round on soft targets. While the M855 bullet depends on either yaw or fragmentation inside the target for maximum transfer of kinetic energy, the EPR does not, said Lt Col Woods, but neither is it designed to expand since that would be against the laws of war. Instead, the EPR reacts consistently each time, regardless of angle of yaw.
Against hard targets, the M855 A1 is clearly superior to the M855 even judging by the fairly approximate figures that Lt Col Woods presented. Fired from an M4 carbine, the M855 will penetrate a 3/8-inch steel “battle barrier surrogate” from a range of about 150 m, but the EPR will do so in excess of 350 m. And whereas the M855 will not penetrate a concrete masonry unit, the EPR will get through such a barrier from a few tens of metres. Fired from the longer barrelled M16, the results are even better with the EPR penetrating the steel barrier at almost 400 m and the concrete masonry unit at comfortably more than 80 m. The EPR’s penetration of the 3/8-inch steel barrier is significantly better than that of the 7.62mm M80, and it will also penetrate some types of lower quality body armour. The M855 also performs better from the longer barrelled weapon, although it still won’t penetrate the concrete barrier.
The EPR is also said to be slightly more accurate than the M855, but its ballistics are so close, says Lt Col Woods, that soldiers are not required to re-zero their weapons, although there is some benefit in doing so. Soldiers have noticed that it is possible to spin the tip of some bullets, but this is not a fault, he insists, just a characteristic. “If anything, I’ve seen these rounds fire slightly more accurately.” The small gap noticeable between the tip and the edge of the jacket is also quite normal."
Above from: http://sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=808
Just because the media has labeled this a "green" round. I'd suggest that everybody not use a Guns and Ammo story written by a LAPD part time author as fact.
Re: M8551A1 round - worth a read
The outdoor (Navy/Marine) ranges in my area have all been shut down. The main reason was because of the sound pollution (rich pricks buying up the areas around the range and then complaining about the shooting) and the fact that it costs hundreds of millions to clean up all the lead and other contaminents in the outdoor dirt berms. They've moved all this into new indoor ranges. That's really where the "Green" issues comes into play. The lead dust and lead readings in these indoor ranges are very high. Unfortunately, these ranges are only 100 yards long. So, longer distances have to be done with simulated targets. (tiny targets simulating longer ranges). I think it's all crap.
Now, they come out with this completely useless bullet that will be hit and miss at 100 yards. shamefull
The outdoor (Navy/Marine) ranges in my area have all been shut down. The main reason was because of the sound pollution (rich pricks buying up the areas around the range and then complaining about the shooting) and the fact that it costs hundreds of millions to clean up all the lead and other contaminents in the outdoor dirt berms. They've moved all this into new indoor ranges. That's really where the "Green" issues comes into play. The lead dust and lead readings in these indoor ranges are very high. Unfortunately, these ranges are only 100 yards long. So, longer distances have to be done with simulated targets. (tiny targets simulating longer ranges). I think it's all crap.
Now, they come out with this completely useless bullet that will be hit and miss at 100 yards. shamefull
Re: M8551A1 round - worth a read
As I recall, M855's required accuracy for acceptance is effectively just over 5 MOA (granting that it's expressed as a standard of deviation at a given distance, etc etc)...so how is this any different?
As I recall, M855's required accuracy for acceptance is effectively just over 5 MOA (granting that it's expressed as a standard of deviation at a given distance, etc etc)...so how is this any different?
Re: M8551A1 round - worth a read
Just one more thing for the enviro-natzis. This country is going to hell.
Just one more thing for the enviro-natzis. This country is going to hell.
Re: M8551A1 round - worth a read
something else that I found
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Pro's:
A) Sub 2 MOA Accuracy. I was averaging 1.7-1.75 MOA with my lot, but I believe it was shooter error due to me sucking. I am told by reliable sources anecdotally it is averaging 1.5 MOA.
B) Puts bad guys down harder. Shot placement reigns supreme and I'm not a Terminal Ballistics guru or done autopsies on bad guys and had to delete the photos I took of bad guys all shot up for research purposes due to being investigated for war crimes, but those shot with the M855A1 ate shit harder than those shot with standard ball M855. Sorry for not being scientific, but I lack the tools and the talent.
C) Availability. I ran out of MK 262 MOD 1 early on, and we couldn't source any SOST / MK 318 MOD 0 even though it is now a STRAC'd ammo. We could get M855A1 all deployment.
D) Enhanced exterior ballistics. Higher velocity, better ballistic coefficient resulted in a flatter trajectory and easier hold-off's. Win / Win.
Cons:
A) 3-part Bullet Construction. I do not want to see a catastrophic malfunction because a tip worked itself loose into the lower receiver / fire controls group.
B) Lack of performance against automobile windshield glass.
C) Increased chamber pressures to the tune of 63,000 psi in a 14.5" M4. Most Soldiers in my Unit don't know about / comprehend the issue or ramifications of bullet setback, and simply replace the round they ejected back into the top of their magazine post patrol since people here are retarded and want Amber weapon systems. I am willing to bet an incident arose here directly due to this, but odds are it was either misdiagnosed or covered up.
D) Lack of information about the round that is needed by shooters on the ground. AWG stepped in and squared this away for us. They are awesome. Lot of misinformation out there still, sadly, perpetuated by PEO Soldier mostly.
</div></div>
something else that I found
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Pro's:
A) Sub 2 MOA Accuracy. I was averaging 1.7-1.75 MOA with my lot, but I believe it was shooter error due to me sucking. I am told by reliable sources anecdotally it is averaging 1.5 MOA.
B) Puts bad guys down harder. Shot placement reigns supreme and I'm not a Terminal Ballistics guru or done autopsies on bad guys and had to delete the photos I took of bad guys all shot up for research purposes due to being investigated for war crimes, but those shot with the M855A1 ate shit harder than those shot with standard ball M855. Sorry for not being scientific, but I lack the tools and the talent.
C) Availability. I ran out of MK 262 MOD 1 early on, and we couldn't source any SOST / MK 318 MOD 0 even though it is now a STRAC'd ammo. We could get M855A1 all deployment.
D) Enhanced exterior ballistics. Higher velocity, better ballistic coefficient resulted in a flatter trajectory and easier hold-off's. Win / Win.
Cons:
A) 3-part Bullet Construction. I do not want to see a catastrophic malfunction because a tip worked itself loose into the lower receiver / fire controls group.
B) Lack of performance against automobile windshield glass.
C) Increased chamber pressures to the tune of 63,000 psi in a 14.5" M4. Most Soldiers in my Unit don't know about / comprehend the issue or ramifications of bullet setback, and simply replace the round they ejected back into the top of their magazine post patrol since people here are retarded and want Amber weapon systems. I am willing to bet an incident arose here directly due to this, but odds are it was either misdiagnosed or covered up.
D) Lack of information about the round that is needed by shooters on the ground. AWG stepped in and squared this away for us. They are awesome. Lot of misinformation out there still, sadly, perpetuated by PEO Soldier mostly.
</div></div>
Similar threads
