I just learned more about 5.56 ammo in the last 20 minutes than I have in the last 30 years. Instant thumbs and subs. My main takeaway: I'm glad I load my own 5.56 ammo!
The problem with M855, based on the Army's testing, and this has been replicated all over by testers here on RUclips - the terminal performance of M855 AND M193 drops off drastically below 2,500 feet per second. This is pretty consistent. People have been able to replicate it by using barrels where the velocity is close to to just under 2500 FPS, and it exhibits the same. The best documentation I've seen on this was in Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer by Major Thomas P Ehrhart, where he shows charts with the projectiles' fragmentation at different velocities for M855. The terminal performance is perfectly fine above 2600 FPS, but with an M4 you're cutting your really ideal lethal range in half down to about 100 meters versus an M16. Since the Army decided they wanted the M4, it was apparent that they HAD to redesign the projectile. It's the exact same reasoning behind why every police department in America had to accept that FMJ just was not cutting it for 9mm. Now, I probably would have preferred to see the Navy's Mk318 Mod 1 adopted as standard, but the Army has a lot of pull and budget behind it as far as small arms development, so the USMC relented. Now, I've seen a lot of people point to Mk262 as the gold standard, and while a great cartridge, and while you DO have to re-zero with M855A1 (and we did, the Army ALWAYS zeroes before qualification and before deployment), you can use the same zero ranges, the same zero procedure, and the same optics with the same BDC reticle, which you can NOT do with Mk262. So keeping the same bullet weight and reducing the velocity to M855 loads was the right choice. I was under the impression that they had reduced the pressure of current lots, which is why the velocity is almost identical to M855 green tip. You can barely tell the difference between M855A1 and M855 green tip. Also, it forcing the Army to use new magazines is a GOOD thing, the worst malfunctions I had with an M4A1 (double feeds and more) were all with old mags. Also, of course M855A1 is going to be cheaper than M995, steel is nothing compared to tungsten, which is a very rare metal compared to iron....the only reason M855A1 is so expensive on the civilian market is because it's being pulled from black market sources, it's literally not being sold to civilians, and yet it's still $3 a round, half what you quoted for M995. The Army is probably paying damn near exactly the same for M855A1 from Lake City as it was with M855, and Lake City is pumping it out like crazy right now. As far as port pressures - it was the Army and then the USMC that decided that they HAD to have a carbine length 14.5. In fact, testing has actually shown that even with a 14.5" barrel and M855A1, a mid-length gas system drastically reduces malfunctions. I think they could just simply move the gas port further up the barrel and call it a day, or better yet just start using 16" with mid length gas systems and keep their silly bayonet lugs while reducing port pressures and increasing reliability and muzzle velocity. It would probably be the perfect time to redesign the M4 into a more modern platform with a better barrel contour and gas system and combine it with a modern rail system. They already have new grenade launchers, so it's time for the grenade launcher cut to die.
Hi T.H., you seem like a knowledgeable resource. Hope you don't mind if I ask ur opinion on my decision to choose M855 on my 16" barrel 1:8. My consideration is 50-300yds and pushing up to 500-600yds max. I'm hoping for 2moa groups minimum. Terminating results are not my main focus, but incapacitating results are. My decision making includes best in cost and availability. If you don't have time to reply I understand. Stay up!
Great write up man. Thank you. This is what should have happened instead of the XM7 which I still dont think will be the standard Army service rifle ever.
Hydrostatic shock starts at about 2000 fps. By your logic 7.62x39 is utterly useless because it starts at 2400 and 5.45x39 is only going to match 5.56 at very close range because it starts at ~2800. I dont see how you're drawing the conclusion that law enforcement moved away from fmj because it wasn't lethal enough when the only real motivation was reducing over penetration because police are much more likely to cause collateral damage with over penetration, at least compared to military application. As evident by the militaries decision making process they only use the heavier otm in very specific circumstances like gaurd duty and cqb work but active duty troops likely to encounter combat all get 855a1. Personally, if the setting is war I would use m193 and m855 over any otm because over penetration isn't really a factor and a tiny bit of barrier penetration improvement could make the difference in this setting especially when your enemy is likely to have standard military armor. The only thing I'd pick over the m193 and m855 is m855a1 or m993 because it takes this concept to its most extreme. The mags i agree with, you can also just file the lip down to stop the tip from catching. I don't remember the exact price but m855a1 was definitely more expensive than m855 (copper is expensive) but alot cheaper than the otm rounds.
@@whatsmolly5741 The reason M193 and M855 performance drops off much past 100m (from an M4) is not because of hydrostatic shock. Much below 2300-2500FPS the M193 and later M855 projectiles don't violently fragment like they were designed to, and start to over-penetrate more with much less tissue damage. That was one of the many design considerations of the -A1 project. Between that and using a faster powder designed to operate in shorter barrels.
From what I understand, the M855A1 was an Army project and no other branch of the US military wanted it. Mainly because they knew it would wear out barrels and break guns. Now, the Army has decided to replace its 5.56mm weapons with the 6.8x51. How does that even make sense?
1. The Army *isn't* replacing all (not even most) 5.56mm weapons with 6.8. Those units that will continue using 5.56mm need the best options we can *practically* issue them (meaning most of the often proposed alternatives generally fail there, given costs and terminal performance against the projected threat sets - see below). 2. The Army determined a high likelihood of US forces facing near peer threats with widely issued improved body armor. *NO* ammunition types that were affordable in either 5.56x45mm or 7.62x51mm could handle the threat set of defeating a specified body armor at a specified range (those actual specifications are still classified; the fact they exist and were NGSW program drivers is *not* ). The Army determined that a 6.8mm projectile of a specific design, at a specific muzzle velocity, was what it would take for a round that could be practically fired from a rifle and LMG, to handle the threat set. 3. The M855A1 development program was complete *and the final round standardized *12 years* before the NGSW program finished. Hell, the M855A1 was standardized being issued for combat *7 years* before the NGSW program was begun. 4. The M855A1 program beginning actually goes back to *1995* , but languished for years as the *Army* didn't really care about "lead free ammo". (The tungsten rounds they developed and were on the cusp of adopting were cancelled because they were *stupidly* expensive, there are *no* significant US sources of tungsten - most of the world's tungsten supplies are controlled by Russia and China, which means if we found ourselves fighting them *we wouldn't be able to make more ammo* . And, of course tungsten is *also toxic* , like lead.) In 2003, the Army came back to the "lead free ammo" program because they realized here was an already authorized and funded program for a new general issue rifle round... while SOCOM and Infantry Branch didn't give a shit about saving the bunny rabbits, they did realize that all they had to do was develop a new, more effective, round that happened to not use lead, tungsten, or other highly toxic heavy metals, and they could use the bunny hugger money to pay for the development.
China has the most tungsten ore for sure. But we have pretty decent supplies of wolframite, etc in the US and Canada. South Korea and southern Europe have decent amounts as well, so it's not all in the "axis" countries (just the majority, lol) Our biggest problem is we don't want to actually mine our own raw materials, not a lack of the materials themselves. That and we're so lazy we also want it processed overseas so they can deal with the pollution.
During a range day we chrono'd 20 rounds out of an M4A1. Had a deviation of 200 FPS. Max FPS was almost 3K and lowest in the 2700s. Was a crazy deviation.
The vast majority of the Army/NG/AR is nasty POGs that will never deploy. There's no justifiable reason they need to be issued M4A1s, M855A1 and brand new proprietary mags just to shoot their joke of an annual rifle qual. Give them M4s for their deployment workups. A2/A4s are perfectly fine as training weapons, in fact they teach better habits and technique that translate directly to shooting a carbine when it matters. The reality is they use carbines because they have an overabundance of women and softbodies who would whine about carrying a musket
100%. I just put that in a comment before reading yours. Velocity defeats armor. Go look at the back of 3/8” AR500 steel. The warning says not to shoot it with anything over 3000 fps. If you face folks with armor, want to defeat it, AND have program compliance with other folks to be able to share ammo/mags/parts; 20” barrel, m193, 1:7 twist.
@@onseki1774 having carried an M4 on all my deployments it was handy but a 20" with adjustable stock would have done the job just as well in almost every situation we encountered.
“Penetration” isn’t just about steel. It’s also about cinder blocks and bricks. M855A1 performs better than 7.62 M80 in how quickly it destroys cove. Also, for terminal performance in tissue, M855A1 does not depend on fleet yaw in order to destabilize and fragment like M855. M855 had a tendency to ice pick if it didn’t have enough yaw on impact. Also, M855A1 doesn’t require the velocity to fragment the way either M855 or M193 require. It has a much lower velocity threshold for fragmentation
Some things missed here, The terminal performance vs regular 855 is an order of magnitude better. Also the minimum expansion/fragmentation velocity is super low, something between 1400 and 1600 FPS which give A1 a much better usable range out of shorter barrels.
Just don't drop them on anything hard when fully loaded. Boing! They're also banned for use in the arctic and don't do too well in extreme heat either. Oh, and they absorb humidity and swell. But go ahead. You be you.
@@donwyoming1936the amount of money and time they have to actually make a decent magazine; but don't, is asinine. Their new tmag just shows they don't care about creating a good product anymore. They had their pmag success, and did nothing more for magazines.
@@donwyoming1936 How many other magazines passed military testing for feed reliability? Or was that just gen 3 pmag that came in first with either GI/lancer in a distant 2nd and 3rd?
m995 can now go for over 100 a round on gunbroker. The us army will never use tungsten cored ammo as its very expensive. also if we used tungsten to core every bullet and used as much as we did in ww2 we would RUN out of tungsten in 3 years.
@@FlatRangeOperator More bullets is more better so you need so be able to mass produce CHEAP ammo. All these exotic materials don't lend themselves to mass production.
7:03 That is a "rifle" barrel extension in a receiver with "M4" feed ramps. The Two should have NEVER been married. Any argument about round presentation, or magazine issues is invalid if this photo is the "proof". Every single round fed into this combo will do exactly as shown in the photo, regardless is its M855A1 or not......... In this instance it is the mismatch of barrel extension and receiver feed ramps that caused a problem.
Ding ding ding. The feed ramp issue is a joke. Especially with Enhanced Performance Mags or PMAGs which have anti-tilt followers meaning that the feed ramp presentation meme is nothing but a meme.
Conspiracy? The Army purposely trying to break m4s so they can get new guns and the retired general and buddies can get a nice kick back from the new contract.
@@JoeyInkwell pretty much. This ammo makes no sense for so many reasons and all the claims about the need to defeat armor aren't there given how little armor is actually out there in real use. Can see it's all about special interest and paying people with how everything around SIG is super sketchy with how they won. Upgrading the M9 would have made way more sense then a whole new pistol. The 6.8x51 is just the M14 all over again. If there was a weapon that needed to go it was the 249. Combine it and the 240 with a single MG that is lighter then the 240 and has more range to counter the PKM.
Don't you love how they had to introduce a new barrel erosion gage with a new failure line for M855A1, which is mysteriously way higher? lol I couldn't believe that PM article, and worse yet I hate how no one saw the problem with it.
I have a different interpretation of the gel results. M855 can have quite a long neck depending on the fleet yaw on impact. It also has a fragmentation threshold that can be 100yds or so from a M4. M855A1 fragments reliably out to around 400yds depending on barrel length. Milton’s tests show far better accuracy over 855. In a semi automatic rifle the issues of cycle time and reliability become irrelevant. AR15 barrels are relatively cheap these days so just treat them as consumable and use the ammunition that gives you what you want.
Totally disagree. Barrels wearing out are more than likely not going to be found until it fails. Weapons maintenance is a severe problem for the US. Govt. The accuracy of the M855 has been just fine for nearly 30 years. The slight increase does not benefit over the negative aspects it has on the weapons. There are other options where they could get similar results without destroying the weapons and increasing lifecycle costs of the weapons. Again, just my opinion.
I got my hand on some of the M855A1 ammo and dude that are nasty at penetrating steel better than the old green tips but way way to hard to get to stockpile and personally i like the old M855 green tips better. Great video brother
For the tens of millions of dollars that went into this ammo, its retooling, the maintenance, the magazines and the production, the US Army could have bought a small mountain worth of tungsten that would make BILLIONS of rounds worth of ammo and simply stored it on location at Lake City to turn into M995 if there ever became a need for AP 5.56mm NATO ammo in the future war scenario. Also issuing M995 to every US Army Ammo Supply Point (ASP) on all of our Army Bases with a “break glass in case of war” regulation would go a really long way to solving this problem cheaply and effectively.
At 73 years old with poor eyesight and thin retinas I am not shooting unless I have a break in through our very heavy doors then range is around 3 meters. So XM193 and M855 over runs without some of the waterproofing issue rounds would be sufficient along with a small amount of commercial 223 ammo all bought around 5 years ago. Shortest barrel is 16.1 inches the rest are all 20 inches. My 2 older 20 inch are 1-12 Twist they newer pair are both 1-9 twist both bought from a store that was going out of business that I had bought from as far back as the 1960's.
Best comparison/review of this round on youtube, much appreciated. I have some M855A1s, but with all the downsides (higher pressures and a huge impact on barrel lifespan) I will stick to good old greentips for my rifle. Thank you.
Great comprehensive review and analysis of this round very few if any civilians will use. If you could slow down a little, the show would be even better than it is, which is great. Thank you Chris.
17:25 - You can get match accuracy pending the type of M855a1 projectile it is. (it's essentially a defect in the projectile during production that increases accuracy) If you want some to load and try - shoot me a message.
Anecdote from service. The revamp of pressures are no becoming more commonly known by end users at many levels. Some M7s walking around Drum but very few. Last Inf Co I saw kick out overseas was rocking M4s, and M17s. After actually reading M17 TM my groups issues have reduced (but not gone away). The Inf guys M17s were over lubed like an M4 that got the “spray bottle into the ejection port” treatment. Going with a weapon that needs to be lubed like a Glock without stressing that in the initial issue material made some issues considering how other small arms in inventory are lubed
the idea of a 'green' round is just ridiculous. I can understand if it's range ammo, then your guys aren't breathing in lead as much. But for war, it's just ridiculous. The fact they're throwing solid chunks of copper away like that is so wasteful. If anything it's less green
Only ridiculous to those that have no idea how much the EPA fines the DoD. Yes, contrary to whatever you think you might know, federal agencies are perfectly capable of leveraging fines against other federal agencies and the EPA loves to use the military to pad its budget.
I'd venture to guess that DoD really didn't care what happened to the round after it went downrange. The 'green' justification was likely about how much less lead a soldier would be exposed to over the length of an enlistment. Lead poisoning isn't as much of a thing for adults, but it does affect the exposed person's children significantly. That makes more sense to me anyway.
@thomasfx3190 They did care because one of the basic requirements of M855A1 was improved terminal performance agaist common barriers. Taking the lead out greatly simplifies range maintenance for all the DoD plus less lead exposure is better overall for soldiers who actually do the most shooting.
Given the fact that M855A1 can still fragment reliably even at the lowest velocities and it's better performance on barriers means it's a round better overall compare to other ball rounds. Jeff Gurwitch from Modern Tactical Shooting makes a good point about the feed ramp issue by bring up the point that there's only those five pictures and nothing else. If it was more of a problem then why isn't there more pictures of it? Off topic, but have you seen the video about the M16 from Ivan Print Guns?
@@sasquatch4liffeeindeed. Just finished testing a RF2 plate that stopped M885 from full velocity (3,100 fps) but couldn’t stop A1 from a 16”. That round was able to create 2 wound tracks in the gel behind the armor out to the 10” and 15” mark.
There is a WSTIAC DoD funded study on 5,56 and m855 specifically lethality. At close range m885 will *usually* tumble inside of a target at 4” of penetration and if striking velocity is high enough it will fragment at the cannelure. At m4 or m16 velocity, this is a very lethal wounding effect. Depth of tumbling depends though on fleet yaw of the bullet when it strikes (ranging from +-4 degrees and 0 at close range). A hit a 0 degree can result in a drastically increased penetration depth before tumbling (over 10 inches) practically ensuring a 5,56mm icepick wound even when inside fragmentation velocity range. This explains why m16a4 and m885 would fail in Iraq at room combat distance (same rifle and ammunition lot can produce drastically different wounding effects at the same range). This unreliability of effects is common to all fmj rifle rounds that need early tumbling to produce significant wounding. It can be improved the Russian way with 7n6 forcibly inducing early tumbling by making the core shift inside the bullet upon impact or with the m885a1 construction that provides reliable early fragmentation if the bullet strikes at high enough velocity without needing tumbling (this way you don’t need to worry at fleet yaw variations outside of your control but only need to check engagement range). The added penetration capability might help against heavy trucks and crappy russian plate armor
Honestly I prefer the M193 and 16"-20" barrel's for general purpose use. However I have been testing a 20" 1-14 twist barrel with 40gr-50gr projectiles and HOLY COW some loads hit 3,500-3,600fps and when you add Hollow Points and Ballistic Tips things get really interesting! The Head up the ass thinking of the DOD always pushing for heavier projectiles really screwed up the AR-15. The initial reports from testing the AR-15 back when the 601 had the 1-14 twist barrel where shocking regarding the amount of destruction and limbs being blown off. It's even more destructive with Hollow Points and Ballistic Tips. Lighter with higher velocity is the way to go for Anti-Personnel use. Just WOW!
@@nickolasthefrog I have heard some crazy things about the Velocity of 17-5.56 NATO. I'm trying to remember who posted that video a few days ago. They were pushing velocity up over 5,000fps.
@@nickolasthefrog yeah that's who it was. But I personally don't have any interest in the 17 caliber wildcat round. I like being able to buy off the shelf ammo in standard calibers. Besides light 40gr-50gr 223 Remington at 3,500fps is devastating as it is.
I really enjoyed the Model 604 M16s we had the Air Force. Light. Chromed BCG. No fwd assist. The M193 screamed out of the 1-12, 20 inch barrels. Plus, they were quite accurate. I prefer a lightweight AR to this day.
This was all very interesting, thank uou. I served in the peace time army, mostly before the gulf war and carried an M16A2, I was an artillery officer, carried a 9mm Beretta as well, but we only went to the range 2-3 times a year IIRC. I only remember seeing M193 ammo in grey boxes with black labels. From what ive read the Army adopted M885 in 1984 but that was a full six years before my time. We must have been shooting up surplus.
I like the tungsten carbide round, m855, and m193, but I don’t like the A1 because I like my weapons. I understand what they were trying to do, but the actual armor piercing round works well and doesn’t damage weapons and no special magazine needed. The juice ain’t worth the squeeze with the M855A1 in my opinion
Lots of good info… I just hope people take into with their stockpiles of things. A rifle that last twice as long, with ammo 1/10 of the price, is probably worth more than slightly better performance when the supply chain is cut
This is weird. I’ve seen at least three other channels test M855A1, and they found no difference in average velocity of standard deviation from lake city M855 regular.
@@alanmcnew5376okay right but this guy in the video is saying different. He is saying the velocity IS more with A1 and if it's not its because it takes more PSI to push it down the barrel and that's why the velocity is the same. I'm having a difficult time believing the guy in the video and I will tell you why. From what I saw it didn't matter what barrel length was tested. The velocity was the same between A1 and normal M855A1. If it was taking more PSi to push it down the barrel then it would show up in the longer barrel length. For instance. If 14.5" is showing 2900 for both A1 and non A1 and it was taking more PSi to push it down the barrel because of drag then when the 20" was tested the NON A1 would show faster because of the extra drag of the longer barrel but that's not the case in the testing I saw. They were the same velocity barrel length for barrel length between the 2 rounds.
I chronographed some of the ones that first came out I had from back when I still was in the military compared to ones from 2023 there was a big difference. The 2023 seemed to be about the same velocity as regular m855. Maybe there were hotter lots than others. Idk
@@ShizawnSanders The problem is, he didn’t film himself chronographing the A1. MAC and some other did, and found they had the exact same velocity as the M855 regular.
@@JeffNeelzebubin I believe 2016 they changed the round to have lower velocities they also stopped crimping bullets everything I have is 2014 and earlier I personally am not concerned I have enough and don't want any current production.
Barrel wear could've been addressed with polygonal rifling that cuts into the jacket instead of compressing it; it also boosts MV due to less friction. The US Army could have saved on costs by re-rifling the worn out .556x45 to 6mmx45 with polygonal rifling.
@@SmallArmsSolutions What are the down-scaling limitations? I have a 260AI that shoots fine; does the 14.5% in 6.5mm upscale make the difference, or is it per rate of fire difference?
This was the reason polygon has been mostly restricted to pistol calibers. HK was the only company to ever do this with rifles and primarily with 7.62mm.
What I'M interested in is how well M80A1 performs out of 300blk cartridges. M855A1 is neat enough, even though it tears up guns at an extreme rate, but M80A1 potentially 'flooding' the market someday when they switch over calibers is my focus. I've only seen maybe one or two tests of it in 300blk configuration, but it performed well in gel. And with the lower pressures of the 300blk, the wear and tear should be easily reduced.
Ohh it is awesome in 300 BLK. I’m able to pop RF2/III+ plates that M855a1 would normally get stopped. The only downside to M80a1 is that they didn’t harden to tip as much as M855a1. 49-50RHC vs 59-60 RHC.
Honestly for most applications the old M193 round is sufficient and even better in a couple of ways too. The barrier defeating capabilities of M855 is marginally better than M193 when compared to the performance increase you get by stepping up to 7.62 NATO. Service rifles are meant to engage point targets at relatively close range. Crew served weapons engage out farther, hit harder and can defeat more threats. Riflemen finish the fight, but it is combined arms from systems of systems working together that sets the conditions for victory.
I think it’s kind of a moot point to argue that this round will destroy your gun. Because in what scenario would you be shooting nothing but AP. Personally I think it’s a good option to sprinkle these rounds in with .77 grain OTMs if you thought you’d be facing a force that had body armor. Otherwise it be pointless to shoot this round and I don’t see why anyone would shoot this for target practice it’s very much a specific round for a specific use case.
This is the standard issue M855A1, we are not talking about the XM7 with the diffrent rounds. The M855A1 is the general issue. There is no 5.56mm training ammo like the XM7
As I understand it, the 855 was developed anticipating the need for bullets to defeat body armor, yet still be an adequate “fight ender.” Experience in Somalia - where body armor was unknown - showed the ammo penetrated far too easily, leading to the need for multiple hits to down a target. In other words, ammo design is a compromise. Likewise, ammo and weapon work together. Change one, and results will differ. Since the 855 was adopted we’ve moved to shorter barrels. This can invalidate earlier test results. Here’s my take: Fight in Ukraine? 855 all the way. Fight in Gaza? 193 is my choice. Somalia? Give me ballistic tipped hollow-points.
SS109 (M855) was developed with a loose requirement for the weapon to be able to penetrate an M1 steel pot helmet at a certain distance. That's it. That's the extent of it's intentional armor or barrier penetration as laid down by the military. No real requirements as far as its effect on people go either.
My understanding is the real reason multiple shots were required in Somalia was because everyone was high on khat, not because the round was ineffective.
Wow! When I first heard the claims of M855 doing better in 14.5 than 29, I called BS but, eventually accepted the claim as fact, after watching this video, I totally understand why.
I genuinely appreciate the effort and care that you put in your work, and I know for a fact that I'm not the only one! Thanks for keeping us informed, and please do take care. 🙏🤘
I've seen plenty of videos where the m855A1 upsets much sooner going into the gell than the M855. Which is leading one to believe it'll be more incapacitating.
The issue with 995 and making it the standard issue round is the available supply of heavy tungsten carbide or lack thereof. Not nearly enough of it available worldwide to supply DoD, and that includes supplies from unfriendly nations....
My question, if you had to deploy and were given the choice between these and green tips? I once foolishly shot a whitetail deer with a green tip at about 60 yards. We managed to find it still alive but laying down by a fence at least 400 yards away, as we approached it surprisingly jumped up and ran off with no safe shot to take, it followed the fence for another 100 yards before becoming entangled in the fence where I was able to safely take another shot. I have a feeling the A1 would've been a different story. It was a textbook shot, right behind the shoulder about 1/3rd below the spine.
Ive seen some other youtubers prove that M855A1 is superior in penetration to M855 with AR500 steel targets, and provides a similar boost in performance to a shorter 14.5-16" barreled AR as shooting M855 out of a 20" barreled rifle does. And shooting M855A1 out of a 20" rifle provides the best penetration you can get, short of M995 AP. Fringe usage cases for this maximum penetration in a civilian role, but if it's necessary, then use the 20" barrel rifle. Even an extra 100 fps is sometimes all that's needed to punch a hole instead of cratering.
My test was on hard steel as you saw with a 14.5 inch bbl. The results are clearly visible and not open to interpretation. On this hard steel, the M855A1 was superior to the M193 and M855. But nowhere’s near the performance of the M995. Perhaps also the other RUclipsrs you are referring to were using mild instead of hard steel.
Ok I was told we swapped over from the metal mags to plays is because the rounds would dimple the steel mags causing them to get stuck and tilt in the mag. The p mags wouldn’t do this.
An observation I wanted to note about A1. My unit still has the original grey USGI mags that have been around since before the A1. They have tan follower which according to the results the army posted is the wrong magazine to use. My unit has had no issues with the A1 rounds chewing up feedramps. Despite most of my soldiers using the issued mags. Looking into these rifles I have not found a single one with excessive feedramp wear. I believe that study had a bad magazine that was on its way out. I personally hate USGI mags and will use my personal Gen 3 windowed pmags though.
The problem was serious enough to get a redesigned dedicated magazine. The Tan follower mags were plagued with issues from the beginning. They were in use for a relatively short time. They came in around 2008 or so and were replaced writhing 5 or so years by the EPM. Not a fan of the tan followers personally. I was one of the ones responsible for the problems with the tan followers personally being brought up to Colt and Colt got Picitinny to stop production and recall all tan followers and get the feed lip geometry fixed.
@ I am a sample size of one of course. All of the rounds that I have fired and have been fired for the last 5 years at my unit are all 2012 or sometimes 2014 headstamps. I heavily dislike the USGI mags in general but was surprised to not see any damage from the tan follower mags feeding. Working with a couple different ODAs they use Lancers L5AWM charcoal colored mags as their standard and have had good success with them with A1 and MK262 and MK318 barrier rounds. Appreciate the content. I’m going to have to chrono some of these A1 rounds to see what results I get.
The Army is always looking for the magic bullet. Accurate out to 1,000 yds. Lethal at the same distance, able to penetrate an inch of steel. Lighter than a feather.
i seen this M 855A1 tested against regular 55 grain ammo and it tested out the same so im not sure how we are saying we have higher pressures, the video i watched just came out around 3 weeks or a month ago from today.
1 Why not decrease the gas port size and increase the buffer spring strength to "slow it down"?? 2 Increase the metallurgy requirements for the barrels and feed ramps. Don't they double the chrome lining on "machine guns"?
It’s not just the propellant, its how the longer harder bullet that requires more energy to push it down the bore which increases pressures as one factor (causing barrel wear) plus the need to increase velocity in a 14.5 in bbl. Not to mention its use in a 20 in bbl by the way. The problem really is the construction of the “green” bullet. It’s a much more complex dance the physics and all that make all this work.
other than mixing such ammo with tracers, to deal with moving cars or choppers, I don't see any point in the stuff, I carry one such 30 Rd mag, I've got a mag full of 69 gr bthp match ammo, in case I"m forced to be out in the open, in daylight, but the rest of my 5.56 mags are loaded with 60 gr Nosler Partition softpoints. the difference in effect vs ball ammo is astounding, provable on animals. This is especially true from short barreled rifles. I intend to handle almost every problem, if shtf, with the 60gr Aquila subsonic 's, the CMMG rimfire conversion unit for the AR-15 and the 5.56 silencer, at night, preferably holding the' rimfire units bolt shut so as to have no more noise than a BB gun and not flash at all.
unclad multipiece projectiles for handguns had problems with the Geneva and Vienna conventions. The original, the first, CETME 7.92x40 mm cartridge was a copper or brass clad aluminum projectile . It was dennounced, amongst others by FN in Belgium, as contrary to the Geneva conventions and susequently dropped.
I was issued this in 2012 . They called it EPR . I was told it was a pure upgrade and could cut through our level 4 plates . My dumb ass believed every word
The engraving forces have more to do with chamber pressure than bullet material. M855A1 projectile in and of itself represents minimal increase in barrel wear. In testing, properly built and maintained weapons did not see a serious degradation in weapon life. Something that does in fact break bolts is running these guns soaking wet with oil. Look up what that does to bolt face thrust forces.
Perhaps the true purpose of the 855a1 IS to destroy the guns, thereby paving the way for the new Sig design of (absurdly heavy) battle rifle and a new cartridge.
MK318 Mod1's core will typically OUT penetrate in soft tissue M855A1. However it's ability against any barriers would be less than that of A1 because of the lack of a penetrator. I've tested the MK318 Mod1 on my channel.
The results and test are showing different than what you have reported in this video. It has now been reported that the psi isn't much more than M855 and a test i saw showed that it DEFINITELY wasn't going any faster. Also, in gel it shows clear DEVESTATION! There isn't a cartridge made that shows the carnage this one does especially considering how well it does with penetration of barriers. That has been MANY test. I will admit i only saw one test that showed it isn't going any faster than M855. One thing for sure is how well it performs in balistics gel. Explosion with MANY different wound tracks MUCH better than M855. Much better penetration than M855. Same velocity as M855 and slightly better accuracy vs M855 is what i have seen. So are you now saying the velocity is the same because takes more PSI to shove it through the barrel and its getting more drag? If that is the case why is 14.5" velocity of M855A1 vs M855 the same and so is 20" velocity? At some point with barrel length you would think there would start to have a difference one way or another because of the drag. More barrel means more drag.
I have right in front of me the gel shots from both. It Is NOT significantly better than the M855. Not at all. Don’t know what tests you are referring to but i did my own unbiased testing. Believe whatever you will.
@@SmallArmsSolutions I'd like to know the parameters for the gel tests, 855's problems don't start until velocity drops below frag threshold, so comparing gel tests at 10 yards with 14.5" barrels is pointless. At 100 or 200 yards, or at 50 from sub-10" barrels, there'll be more applicable data.
All the independent tests back up US Army testing. Far from a failure, M855A1 has been a massive success story that has revolutionized small arms cartridge design. If you note, ALL new rounds with any steel content are being made to EPR design. M80A1 is beginning to slowly replace M80, and ADVAP (M1158) is slated to/is beginning to replace M993 because it provides equal or BETTER armor penetration with FAR superior soft target performance. So yeah. This "mistake" is such a bad one that everyone's starting to look at it for the future.
Frankly, this video is inaccurate. M855 and M885A1 have similar performance up close at like 12 feet, however once it gets to beyond 150 meters things change. Beyond 150 meters M855 suffers greatly as its fragmentation relies heavily on instability and yaw leading to a low yaw impact which means it can travel through a target without causing massive injury. While M855A1 can produce massive injury at greater ranges than M855 while doing it consistently as its not as instability or yaw dependent as M855.
@@SmallArmsSolutions I don't think it's a matter of opinion, it's well documented and something that you can reproduce yourself, many people have here on RUclips with ballistic gelatin blocks and different barrel lengths. M855 does not reliably fragment below 2,500 feet per second, it's that simple. It's shown by recovered bullets/fragments from testing conducted by the Army.
Received “America’s Rifle” several weeks ago. Great book. Loaded with details on the military development of what is clearly the greatest military firearm ever devised. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
The fun fact is no 5,56 round would pierce "near peer adversary body armor" e.g. level 4 armoe plate. But any 5.56 round is able to defeat the rest 80% of a modern body armor set, which is anti-fragment rated only. That fact makes 6.8 mm rounds irrelevant (at least at the desired distances, not like point blank) and monstrous 5,56 AP rounds questinable. Never heard any complains about standard 7N10 (5,45x59, improved penetration - not an AP) being unable to defeat any ukrainian body armor out there, and those guys are stuffed with both NATO gimmicks and Chinese commercial products
What you just described with regard to barrel wear, feed ramp destruction and specificity to mags you can use tells me this ammo is a fail. When your equipment fails, you're out of the fight.
So, it's sounding like the best solution for ammo is to keep M193 out of a 20" barrel, open tip boat tail ammo for carbines and calling in artillery if you need to use M855A1.
OK, I'm only an amateur - but I thought that the US SOCOM adoption of the URGI solved issues with the M855A1. Also Chris - would you consider doing a review of the URGI program and the associated upper?
No, the characteristics of the M855A1 still damage barrels. The URG-I is only CHF chrome lined. Not really any better for M855A1 use. Nobody has a barrel yet. It has to do with the pressure curve as well
The M855 breaking apart is yaw and velocity dependent, which is why it is unreliable in terminal performance. This unreliability is well known, so it seems a little disingenuous to compare the M855A1, designed not to be yaw dependent against an ideal example of the M855. Also, having a copper core is not the main reason for reduced barrel life. That increased chamber pressure, comes with increased burn temperature. The throat of the barrel is exposed to a lot more heat. Heat is what kills barrels; increased friction does indeed cause more heat, but much less so than a compressed charge of double base powder running about 17% higher chamber pressure.
Before I even watch, they should’ve switched to the 6.8 SPC. It was political that they did not. Meaning, the decision was not based on merit or performance.
@@autumnfragrance6326 No. That might be projection by the assholes at Alexander Arms. The Grendel, which has it's place, had broken bolts and a new design.
@@HAHA.GoodMeme Well, it is good for it's intended design. Replacement of the green tip in an M4. It is much better at the long ranges in Afghanistan. One report said SF and their 10" barrels (give or take) were a huge problem. Which is why they did the original testing for themselves.
Why is this video getting pushed at me so hard? Ive watched one or two of your shows before, but this video has been at the top of my feed since yesterday.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
I just learned more about 5.56 ammo in the last 20 minutes than I have in the last 30 years. Instant thumbs and subs.
My main takeaway: I'm glad I load my own 5.56 ammo!
The problem with M855, based on the Army's testing, and this has been replicated all over by testers here on RUclips - the terminal performance of M855 AND M193 drops off drastically below 2,500 feet per second. This is pretty consistent. People have been able to replicate it by using barrels where the velocity is close to to just under 2500 FPS, and it exhibits the same. The best documentation I've seen on this was in Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer by Major Thomas P Ehrhart, where he shows charts with the projectiles' fragmentation at different velocities for M855. The terminal performance is perfectly fine above 2600 FPS, but with an M4 you're cutting your really ideal lethal range in half down to about 100 meters versus an M16. Since the Army decided they wanted the M4, it was apparent that they HAD to redesign the projectile.
It's the exact same reasoning behind why every police department in America had to accept that FMJ just was not cutting it for 9mm.
Now, I probably would have preferred to see the Navy's Mk318 Mod 1 adopted as standard, but the Army has a lot of pull and budget behind it as far as small arms development, so the USMC relented. Now, I've seen a lot of people point to Mk262 as the gold standard, and while a great cartridge, and while you DO have to re-zero with M855A1 (and we did, the Army ALWAYS zeroes before qualification and before deployment), you can use the same zero ranges, the same zero procedure, and the same optics with the same BDC reticle, which you can NOT do with Mk262. So keeping the same bullet weight and reducing the velocity to M855 loads was the right choice. I was under the impression that they had reduced the pressure of current lots, which is why the velocity is almost identical to M855 green tip. You can barely tell the difference between M855A1 and M855 green tip.
Also, it forcing the Army to use new magazines is a GOOD thing, the worst malfunctions I had with an M4A1 (double feeds and more) were all with old mags.
Also, of course M855A1 is going to be cheaper than M995, steel is nothing compared to tungsten, which is a very rare metal compared to iron....the only reason M855A1 is so expensive on the civilian market is because it's being pulled from black market sources, it's literally not being sold to civilians, and yet it's still $3 a round, half what you quoted for M995. The Army is probably paying damn near exactly the same for M855A1 from Lake City as it was with M855, and Lake City is pumping it out like crazy right now.
As far as port pressures - it was the Army and then the USMC that decided that they HAD to have a carbine length 14.5. In fact, testing has actually shown that even with a 14.5" barrel and M855A1, a mid-length gas system drastically reduces malfunctions. I think they could just simply move the gas port further up the barrel and call it a day, or better yet just start using 16" with mid length gas systems and keep their silly bayonet lugs while reducing port pressures and increasing reliability and muzzle velocity. It would probably be the perfect time to redesign the M4 into a more modern platform with a better barrel contour and gas system and combine it with a modern rail system. They already have new grenade launchers, so it's time for the grenade launcher cut to die.
Excellent review.
Hi T.H., you seem like a knowledgeable resource. Hope you don't mind if I ask ur opinion on my decision to choose M855 on my 16" barrel 1:8. My consideration is 50-300yds and pushing up to 500-600yds max. I'm hoping for 2moa groups minimum. Terminating results are not my main focus, but incapacitating results are. My decision making includes best in cost and availability. If you don't have time to reply I understand. Stay up!
Great write up man. Thank you. This is what should have happened instead of the XM7 which I still dont think will be the standard Army service rifle ever.
Hydrostatic shock starts at about 2000 fps. By your logic 7.62x39 is utterly useless because it starts at 2400 and 5.45x39 is only going to match 5.56 at very close range because it starts at ~2800.
I dont see how you're drawing the conclusion that law enforcement moved away from fmj because it wasn't lethal enough when the only real motivation was reducing over penetration because police are much more likely to cause collateral damage with over penetration, at least compared to military application.
As evident by the militaries decision making process they only use the heavier otm in very specific circumstances like gaurd duty and cqb work but active duty troops likely to encounter combat all get 855a1. Personally, if the setting is war I would use m193 and m855 over any otm because over penetration isn't really a factor and a tiny bit of barrier penetration improvement could make the difference in this setting especially when your enemy is likely to have standard military armor. The only thing I'd pick over the m193 and m855 is m855a1 or m993 because it takes this concept to its most extreme.
The mags i agree with, you can also just file the lip down to stop the tip from catching.
I don't remember the exact price but m855a1 was definitely more expensive than m855 (copper is expensive) but alot cheaper than the otm rounds.
@@whatsmolly5741 The reason M193 and M855 performance drops off much past 100m (from an M4) is not because of hydrostatic shock. Much below 2300-2500FPS the M193 and later M855 projectiles don't violently fragment like they were designed to, and start to over-penetrate more with much less tissue damage.
That was one of the many design considerations of the -A1 project. Between that and using a faster powder designed to operate in shorter barrels.
From what I understand, the M855A1 was an Army project and no other branch of the US military wanted it. Mainly because they knew it would wear out barrels and break guns. Now, the Army has decided to replace its 5.56mm weapons with the 6.8x51. How does that even make sense?
1. The Army *isn't* replacing all (not even most) 5.56mm weapons with 6.8. Those units that will continue using 5.56mm need the best options we can *practically* issue them (meaning most of the often proposed alternatives generally fail there, given costs and terminal performance against the projected threat sets - see below).
2. The Army determined a high likelihood of US forces facing near peer threats with widely issued improved body armor. *NO* ammunition types that were affordable in either 5.56x45mm or 7.62x51mm could handle the threat set of defeating a specified body armor at a specified range (those actual specifications are still classified; the fact they exist and were NGSW program drivers is *not* ). The Army determined that a 6.8mm projectile of a specific design, at a specific muzzle velocity, was what it would take for a round that could be practically fired from a rifle and LMG, to handle the threat set.
3. The M855A1 development program was complete *and the final round standardized *12 years* before the NGSW program finished. Hell, the M855A1 was standardized being issued for combat *7 years* before the NGSW program was begun.
4. The M855A1 program beginning actually goes back to *1995* , but languished for years as the *Army* didn't really care about "lead free ammo". (The tungsten rounds they developed and were on the cusp of adopting were cancelled because they were *stupidly* expensive, there are *no* significant US sources of tungsten - most of the world's tungsten supplies are controlled by Russia and China, which means if we found ourselves fighting them *we wouldn't be able to make more ammo* . And, of course tungsten is *also toxic* , like lead.) In 2003, the Army came back to the "lead free ammo" program because they realized here was an already authorized and funded program for a new general issue rifle round... while SOCOM and Infantry Branch didn't give a shit about saving the bunny rabbits, they did realize that all they had to do was develop a new, more effective, round that happened to not use lead, tungsten, or other highly toxic heavy metals, and they could use the bunny hugger money to pay for the development.
Obviously they break all the guns with their new fancy ammo and then Congress has to give them money for more guns. 😂
It doesn’t, it’s the army, full of dumbshits
@@geodkyt Source?
logistics and supply.....
Kind of relevant are the world’s top tungsten producers. 1) China 2) Vietnam 3) Russia 4) North Korea
Bingo
China has the most tungsten ore for sure. But we have pretty decent supplies of wolframite, etc in the US and Canada. South Korea and southern Europe have decent amounts as well, so it's not all in the "axis" countries (just the majority, lol)
Our biggest problem is we don't want to actually mine our own raw materials, not a lack of the materials themselves. That and we're so lazy we also want it processed overseas so they can deal with the pollution.
Vietnam is on good terms with us these days. Those other three chaps though . . . are a bit less friendly.
Tungsten is a strategic resource and it has far more vital uses (cutting tools, dies, etc) than being blasted into the dirt out of a SAW by PFC Gomez.
Even if the US managed to seize control of every source of tungsten, it wouldn't be enough to make small arms penetrators justifiable in a hot war.
During a range day we chrono'd 20 rounds out of an M4A1. Had a deviation of 200 FPS. Max FPS was almost 3K and lowest in the 2700s. Was a crazy deviation.
Excellent for a machine gun - you don't want all the projectiles to go to the same place.
Don't you get ammo from various manufacturers in the Us forces?
For a 20 round sample 200fps SD is awful! Did you make sure they all had the same head stamp date?
@@jamesporter1653 same manufacturer
@@mfallen2023 it all came from the same ammo can that was cracked open that morning.
At this point lets just go back to 20" barrels with M193.
No thanks. I’ve humped a 20. They suck. 16in middies.
The vast majority of the Army/NG/AR is nasty POGs that will never deploy. There's no justifiable reason they need to be issued M4A1s, M855A1 and brand new proprietary mags just to shoot their joke of an annual rifle qual. Give them M4s for their deployment workups. A2/A4s are perfectly fine as training weapons, in fact they teach better habits and technique that translate directly to shooting a carbine when it matters. The reality is they use carbines because they have an overabundance of women and softbodies who would whine about carrying a musket
100%. I just put that in a comment before reading yours. Velocity defeats armor. Go look at the back of 3/8” AR500 steel. The warning says not to shoot it with anything over 3000 fps.
If you face folks with armor, want to defeat it, AND have program compliance with other folks to be able to share ammo/mags/parts; 20” barrel, m193, 1:7 twist.
cool guys never left it
@@onseki1774 having carried an M4 on all my deployments it was handy but a 20" with adjustable stock would have done the job just as well in almost every situation we encountered.
This needs graphics to really put these numbers into perspective
“Penetration” isn’t just about steel. It’s also about cinder blocks and bricks. M855A1 performs better than 7.62 M80 in how quickly it destroys cove.
Also, for terminal performance in tissue, M855A1 does not depend on fleet yaw in order to destabilize and fragment like M855. M855 had a tendency to ice pick if it didn’t have enough yaw on impact. Also, M855A1 doesn’t require the velocity to fragment the way either M855 or M193 require. It has a much lower velocity threshold for fragmentation
Some things missed here, The terminal performance vs regular 855 is an order of magnitude better. Also the minimum expansion/fragmentation velocity is super low, something between 1400 and 1600 FPS which give A1 a much better usable range out of shorter barrels.
It’s does frag out a lot lower than m855 and m193. Down to 7.5” barrel velocities.
@BuffRANGE
And isn’t dependent on fleet yaw like M855.
Now if I could only stop being poor and feed this in a 7.5
@@lemniscatelogos7917 Why not feed it in a 10.5" where it will be even better :D
@@BuffRANGEyou would know, good to see you here.
This video accidentally became "why you should only buy magpul gen 3 pmags"
Hey they're good and cheap
Just don't drop them on anything hard when fully loaded. Boing! They're also banned for use in the arctic and don't do too well in extreme heat either. Oh, and they absorb humidity and swell. But go ahead. You be you.
@@donwyoming1936the amount of money and time they have to actually make a decent magazine; but don't, is asinine.
Their new tmag just shows they don't care about creating a good product anymore.
They had their pmag success, and did nothing more for magazines.
@@donwyoming1936 What more reliable M4 mag do you recommend?
@@donwyoming1936
How many other magazines passed military testing for feed reliability? Or was that just gen 3 pmag that came in first with either GI/lancer in a distant 2nd and 3rd?
m995 can now go for over 100 a round on gunbroker. The us army will never use tungsten cored ammo as its very expensive. also if we used tungsten to core every bullet and used as much as we did in ww2 we would RUN out of tungsten in 3 years.
@@FlatRangeOperator More bullets is more better so you need so be able to mass produce CHEAP ammo. All these exotic materials don't lend themselves to mass production.
@@matthewconnor5483 exactly
Not really, you can reuse tungsten
@@kool4209 no
@@FlatRangeOperator yea
7:03 That is a "rifle" barrel extension in a receiver with "M4" feed ramps. The Two should have NEVER been married. Any argument about round presentation, or magazine issues is invalid if this photo is the "proof". Every single round fed into this combo will do exactly as shown in the photo, regardless is its M855A1 or not......... In this instance it is the mismatch of barrel extension and receiver feed ramps that caused a problem.
Ding ding ding. The feed ramp issue is a joke. Especially with Enhanced Performance Mags or PMAGs which have anti-tilt followers meaning that the feed ramp presentation meme is nothing but a meme.
Conspiracy? The Army purposely trying to break m4s so they can get new guns and the retired general and buddies can get a nice kick back from the new contract.
You get it!
@@iceman9678 14 years Army current DOD civilian the absolute disgusting waste fraud and abuse I've seen is mind-boggling.
@@JoeyInkwell pretty much. This ammo makes no sense for so many reasons and all the claims about the need to defeat armor aren't there given how little armor is actually out there in real use.
Can see it's all about special interest and paying people with how everything around SIG is super sketchy with how they won.
Upgrading the M9 would have made way more sense then a whole new pistol.
The 6.8x51 is just the M14 all over again.
If there was a weapon that needed to go it was the 249. Combine it and the 240 with a single MG that is lighter then the 240 and has more range to counter the PKM.
@@matthewconnor5483Body armor is very common. If you think it’s some scarcity, I’m not going to even read the rest of your argument.
no because the M7 isn't replacing the M4
I really appreciate the detailed and comprehensive information to make an informed choice on ammunition use.
Don't you love how they had to introduce a new barrel erosion gage with a new failure line for M855A1, which is mysteriously way higher? lol I couldn't believe that PM article, and worse yet I hate how no one saw the problem with it.
I have a different interpretation of the gel results.
M855 can have quite a long neck depending on the fleet yaw on impact.
It also has a fragmentation threshold that can be 100yds or so from a M4.
M855A1 fragments reliably out to around 400yds depending on barrel length.
Milton’s tests show far better accuracy over 855.
In a semi automatic rifle the issues of cycle time and reliability become irrelevant.
AR15 barrels are relatively cheap these days so just treat them as consumable and use the ammunition that gives you what you want.
Totally disagree. Barrels wearing out are more than likely not going to be found until it fails. Weapons maintenance is a severe problem for the US. Govt. The accuracy of the M855 has been just fine for nearly 30 years. The slight increase does not benefit over the negative aspects it has on the weapons. There are other options where they could get similar results without destroying the weapons and increasing lifecycle costs of the weapons. Again, just my opinion.
I got my hand on some of the M855A1 ammo and dude that are nasty at penetrating steel better than the old green tips but way way to hard to get to stockpile and personally i like the old M855 green tips better. Great video brother
For the tens of millions of dollars that went into this ammo, its retooling, the maintenance, the magazines and the production, the US Army could have bought a small mountain worth of tungsten that would make BILLIONS of rounds worth of ammo and simply stored it on location at Lake City to turn into M995 if there ever became a need for AP 5.56mm NATO ammo in the future war scenario. Also issuing M995 to every US Army Ammo Supply Point (ASP) on all of our Army Bases with a “break glass in case of war” regulation would go a really long way to solving this problem cheaply and effectively.
Dayumm... I knew it should've been the Mk318 cartridge that should've been adopted.
How about a comparison with the MK318 of SOCOM/USMC/USN origin. See how the data compares.
At 73 years old with poor eyesight and thin retinas I am not shooting unless I have a break in through our very heavy doors then range is around 3 meters. So XM193 and M855 over runs without some of the waterproofing issue rounds would be sufficient along with a small amount of commercial 223 ammo all bought around 5 years ago. Shortest barrel is 16.1 inches the rest are all 20 inches. My 2 older 20 inch are 1-12 Twist they newer pair are both 1-9 twist both bought from a store that was going out of business that I had bought from as far back as the 1960's.
For home defense, soft points are arguably the best but FMJ will certainly get the job done.
Thank you Bartocci family. Hope you are well. Prayers and love from Upstate NY. 🇺🇸
Thanks!
Best comparison/review of this round on youtube, much appreciated. I have some M855A1s, but with all the downsides (higher pressures and a huge impact on barrel lifespan) I will stick to good old greentips for my rifle. Thank you.
Great comprehensive review and analysis of this round very few if any civilians will use. If you could slow down a little, the show would be even better than it is, which is great. Thank you Chris.
Sorry, it’s an Italian curse
@@SmallArmsSolutionsayooo 🤌🏻
I speed up most media to x1.25 to x1.5 speed, but youtube gives the option to slow it down as well.
17:25 - You can get match accuracy pending the type of M855a1 projectile it is. (it's essentially a defect in the projectile during production that increases accuracy) If you want some to load and try - shoot me a message.
Anecdote from service. The revamp of pressures are no becoming more commonly known by end users at many levels.
Some M7s walking around Drum but very few. Last Inf Co I saw kick out overseas was rocking M4s, and M17s.
After actually reading M17 TM my groups issues have reduced (but not gone away). The Inf guys M17s were over lubed like an M4 that got the “spray bottle into the ejection port” treatment.
Going with a weapon that needs to be lubed like a Glock without stressing that in the initial issue material made some issues considering how other small arms in inventory are lubed
the idea of a 'green' round is just ridiculous. I can understand if it's range ammo, then your guys aren't breathing in lead as much. But for war, it's just ridiculous. The fact they're throwing solid chunks of copper away like that is so wasteful. If anything it's less green
Only ridiculous to those that have no idea how much the EPA fines the DoD. Yes, contrary to whatever you think you might know, federal agencies are perfectly capable of leveraging fines against other federal agencies and the EPA loves to use the military to pad its budget.
I'd venture to guess that DoD really didn't care what happened to the round after it went downrange. The 'green' justification was likely about how much less lead a soldier would be exposed to over the length of an enlistment. Lead poisoning isn't as much of a thing for adults, but it does affect the exposed person's children significantly. That makes more sense to me anyway.
@thomasfx3190 They did care because one of the basic requirements of M855A1 was improved terminal performance agaist common barriers. Taking the lead out greatly simplifies range maintenance for all the DoD plus less lead exposure is better overall for soldiers who actually do the most shooting.
Given the fact that M855A1 can still fragment reliably even at the lowest velocities and it's better performance on barriers means it's a round better overall compare to other ball rounds. Jeff Gurwitch from Modern Tactical Shooting makes a good point about the feed ramp issue by bring up the point that there's only those five pictures and nothing else. If it was more of a problem then why isn't there more pictures of it? Off topic, but have you seen the video about the M16 from Ivan Print Guns?
It was an early problem that was addressed a decade ago, that's why you don't see more pictures...
I've only ever shot M855A1 using ancient clapped out gi mags dated 2007 at the latest and I've never seen any damaged feed ramps.
Fragmentation is a meme in these days. Most people have armor
@@10mmenjoyer Most? No. More? Yes. And A1 does better against armor than Green Tip does.
@@sasquatch4liffeeindeed. Just finished testing a RF2 plate that stopped M885 from full velocity (3,100 fps) but couldn’t stop A1 from a 16”. That round was able to create 2 wound tracks in the gel behind the armor out to the 10” and 15” mark.
Thank you for all the effort and information you provide to us.
There is a WSTIAC DoD funded study on 5,56 and m855 specifically lethality. At close range m885 will *usually* tumble inside of a target at 4” of penetration and if striking velocity is high enough it will fragment at the cannelure. At m4 or m16 velocity, this is a very lethal wounding effect. Depth of tumbling depends though on fleet yaw of the bullet when it strikes (ranging from +-4 degrees and 0 at close range). A hit a 0 degree can result in a drastically increased penetration depth before tumbling (over 10 inches) practically ensuring a 5,56mm icepick wound even when inside fragmentation velocity range. This explains why m16a4 and m885 would fail in Iraq at room combat distance (same rifle and ammunition lot can produce drastically different wounding effects at the same range). This unreliability of effects is common to all fmj rifle rounds that need early tumbling to produce significant wounding. It can be improved the Russian way with 7n6 forcibly inducing early tumbling by making the core shift inside the bullet upon impact or with the m885a1 construction that provides reliable early fragmentation if the bullet strikes at high enough velocity without needing tumbling (this way you don’t need to worry at fleet yaw variations outside of your control but only need to check engagement range). The added penetration capability might help against heavy trucks and crappy russian plate armor
I found a website selling the m855a1. There was no way i was paying 1.30 per round for it
Thanks Chris. I appreciate the deep-dive. The backstory on all this stuff is very interesting to me. Much appreciated, Sir.
What a great in-depth review of this ammo!!!! Great job Chris!!!!!
Military summary channel should watch this
Honestly I prefer the M193 and 16"-20" barrel's for general purpose use. However I have been testing a 20" 1-14 twist barrel with 40gr-50gr projectiles and HOLY COW some loads hit 3,500-3,600fps and when you add Hollow Points and Ballistic Tips things get really interesting! The Head up the ass thinking of the DOD always pushing for heavier projectiles really screwed up the AR-15. The initial reports from testing the AR-15 back when the 601 had the 1-14 twist barrel where shocking regarding the amount of destruction and limbs being blown off. It's even more destructive with Hollow Points and Ballistic Tips. Lighter with higher velocity is the way to go for Anti-Personnel use. Just WOW!
Any experience with 17 caliber cartridges? The velocities I read about are downright goofy.
@@nickolasthefrog I have heard some crazy things about the Velocity of 17-5.56 NATO. I'm trying to remember who posted that video a few days ago. They were pushing velocity up over 5,000fps.
@@celmer6 KAK Industry posted recently.
@@nickolasthefrog yeah that's who it was. But I personally don't have any interest in the 17 caliber wildcat round. I like being able to buy off the shelf ammo in standard calibers. Besides light 40gr-50gr 223 Remington at 3,500fps is devastating as it is.
I really enjoyed the Model 604 M16s we had the Air Force. Light. Chromed BCG. No fwd assist. The M193 screamed out of the 1-12, 20 inch barrels. Plus, they were quite accurate. I prefer a lightweight AR to this day.
(unalloyed) Bismuth is heavier than lead and would have replaced the lead plug easily with a smaller size
The problem was bismuth had a melting problem. The core would actually start to liquify during high-temp tests in the 249
This was all very interesting, thank uou. I served in the peace time army, mostly before the gulf war and carried an M16A2, I was an artillery officer, carried a 9mm Beretta as well, but we only went to the range 2-3 times a year IIRC. I only remember seeing M193 ammo in grey boxes with black labels. From what ive read the Army adopted M885 in 1984 but that was a full six years before my time. We must have been shooting up surplus.
Excellent video as always.
I like the silent intro- very distinctive and fits with the no BS theme of the channel
I just bought some at a gun show today for $2.25 a rd.
I like the tungsten carbide round, m855, and m193, but I don’t like the A1 because I like my weapons. I understand what they were trying to do, but the actual armor piercing round works well and doesn’t damage weapons and no special magazine needed. The juice ain’t worth the squeeze with the M855A1 in my opinion
True rabbit true
Lots of good info… I just hope people take into with their stockpiles of things.
A rifle that last twice as long, with ammo 1/10 of the price, is probably worth more than slightly better performance when the supply chain is cut
This is weird. I’ve seen at least three other channels test M855A1, and they found no difference in average velocity of standard deviation from lake city M855 regular.
They had to tone it down from my understanding due to weapons being damaged. And now it’s the same velocity and pressure.
@@alanmcnew5376okay right but this guy in the video is saying different. He is saying the velocity IS more with A1 and if it's not its because it takes more PSI to push it down the barrel and that's why the velocity is the same. I'm having a difficult time believing the guy in the video and I will tell you why. From what I saw it didn't matter what barrel length was tested. The velocity was the same between A1 and normal M855A1. If it was taking more PSi to push it down the barrel then it would show up in the longer barrel length. For instance. If 14.5" is showing 2900 for both A1 and non A1 and it was taking more PSi to push it down the barrel because of drag then when the 20" was tested the NON A1 would show faster because of the extra drag of the longer barrel but that's not the case in the testing I saw. They were the same velocity barrel length for barrel length between the 2 rounds.
I chronographed some of the ones that first came out I had from back when I still was in the military compared to ones from 2023 there was a big difference. The 2023 seemed to be about the same velocity as regular m855. Maybe there were hotter lots than others. Idk
@@ShizawnSanders The problem is, he didn’t film himself chronographing the A1. MAC and some other did, and found they had the exact same velocity as the M855 regular.
@@JeffNeelzebubin I believe 2016 they changed the round to have lower velocities they also stopped crimping bullets everything I have is 2014 and earlier I personally am not concerned I have enough and don't want any current production.
Barrel wear could've been addressed with polygonal rifling that cuts into the jacket instead of compressing it; it also boosts MV due to less friction. The US Army could have saved on costs by re-rifling the worn out .556x45 to 6mmx45 with polygonal rifling.
Polygonal rifling does not work well in .22 cal. It never did.
@@SmallArmsSolutions What are the down-scaling limitations? I have a 260AI that shoots fine; does the 14.5% in 6.5mm upscale make the difference, or is it per rate of fire difference?
This was the reason polygon has been mostly restricted to pistol calibers. HK was the only company to ever do this with rifles and primarily with 7.62mm.
What I'M interested in is how well M80A1 performs out of 300blk cartridges. M855A1 is neat enough, even though it tears up guns at an extreme rate, but M80A1 potentially 'flooding' the market someday when they switch over calibers is my focus. I've only seen maybe one or two tests of it in 300blk configuration, but it performed well in gel. And with the lower pressures of the 300blk, the wear and tear should be easily reduced.
Ohh it is awesome in 300 BLK. I’m able to pop RF2/III+ plates that M855a1 would normally get stopped. The only downside to M80a1 is that they didn’t harden to tip as much as M855a1. 49-50RHC vs 59-60 RHC.
@@BuffRANGE That's great! I sure hope it becomes commercially available someday.
Honestly for most applications the old M193 round is sufficient and even better in a couple of ways too. The barrier defeating capabilities of M855 is marginally better than M193 when compared to the performance increase you get by stepping up to 7.62 NATO. Service rifles are meant to engage point targets at relatively close range. Crew served weapons engage out farther, hit harder and can defeat more threats. Riflemen finish the fight, but it is combined arms from systems of systems working together that sets the conditions for victory.
I think it’s kind of a moot point to argue that this round will destroy your gun. Because in what scenario would you be shooting nothing but AP. Personally I think it’s a good option to sprinkle these rounds in with .77 grain OTMs if you thought you’d be facing a force that had body armor. Otherwise it be pointless to shoot this round and I don’t see why anyone would shoot this for target practice it’s very much a specific round for a specific use case.
This is the standard issue M855A1, we are not talking about the XM7 with the diffrent rounds. The M855A1 is the general issue. There is no 5.56mm training ammo like the XM7
As I understand it, the 855 was developed anticipating the need for bullets to defeat body armor, yet still be an adequate “fight ender.” Experience in Somalia - where body armor was unknown - showed the ammo penetrated far too easily, leading to the need for multiple hits to down a target. In other words, ammo design is a compromise.
Likewise, ammo and weapon work together. Change one, and results will differ. Since the 855 was adopted we’ve moved to shorter barrels. This can invalidate earlier test results.
Here’s my take:
Fight in Ukraine? 855 all the way.
Fight in Gaza? 193 is my choice.
Somalia? Give me ballistic tipped hollow-points.
SS109 (M855) was developed with a loose requirement for the weapon to be able to penetrate an M1 steel pot helmet at a certain distance. That's it. That's the extent of it's intentional armor or barrier penetration as laid down by the military. No real requirements as far as its effect on people go either.
My understanding is the real reason multiple shots were required in Somalia was because everyone was high on khat, not because the round was ineffective.
Wow! When I first heard the claims of M855 doing better in 14.5 than 29, I called BS but, eventually accepted the claim as fact, after watching this video, I totally understand why.
I hit the like button before Chris even started talking because I knew it would be a good video without even watching it
I genuinely appreciate the effort and care that you put in your work, and I know for a fact that I'm not the only one! Thanks for keeping us informed, and please do take care. 🙏🤘
I've seen plenty of videos where the m855A1 upsets much sooner going into the gell than the M855.
Which is leading one to believe it'll be more incapacitating.
The issue with 995 and making it the standard issue round is the available supply of heavy tungsten carbide or lack thereof. Not nearly enough of it available worldwide to supply DoD, and that includes supplies from unfriendly nations....
My question, if you had to deploy and were given the choice between these and green tips?
I once foolishly shot a whitetail deer with a green tip at about 60 yards. We managed to find it still alive but laying down by a fence at least 400 yards away, as we approached it surprisingly jumped up and ran off with no safe shot to take, it followed the fence for another 100 yards before becoming entangled in the fence where I was able to safely take another shot.
I have a feeling the A1 would've been a different story. It was a textbook shot, right behind the shoulder about 1/3rd below the spine.
Terminal performance is way better than any other 5.56 so it’s worth it
Ive seen some other youtubers prove that M855A1 is superior in penetration to M855 with AR500 steel targets, and provides a similar boost in performance to a shorter 14.5-16" barreled AR as shooting M855 out of a 20" barreled rifle does. And shooting M855A1 out of a 20" rifle provides the best penetration you can get, short of M995 AP. Fringe usage cases for this maximum penetration in a civilian role, but if it's necessary, then use the 20" barrel rifle. Even an extra 100 fps is sometimes all that's needed to punch a hole instead of cratering.
My test was on hard steel as you saw with a 14.5 inch bbl. The results are clearly visible and not open to interpretation. On this hard steel, the M855A1 was superior to the M193 and M855. But nowhere’s near the performance of the M995. Perhaps also the other RUclipsrs you are referring to were using mild instead of hard steel.
@@SmallArmsSolutions Can you elaborate on the distance to steel with your showcased target?
It was 25 yards
Ok I was told we swapped over from the metal mags to plays is because the rounds would dimple the steel mags causing them to get stuck and tilt in the mag. The p mags wouldn’t do this.
Nope
An observation I wanted to note about A1.
My unit still has the original grey USGI mags that have been around since before the A1. They have tan follower which according to the results the army posted is the wrong magazine to use. My unit has had no issues with the A1 rounds chewing up feedramps. Despite most of my soldiers using the issued mags. Looking into these rifles I have not found a single one with excessive feedramp wear. I believe that study had a bad magazine that was on its way out. I personally hate USGI mags and will use my personal Gen 3 windowed pmags though.
The problem was serious enough to get a redesigned dedicated magazine. The Tan follower mags were plagued with issues from the beginning. They were in use for a relatively short time. They came in around 2008 or so and were replaced writhing 5 or so years by the EPM. Not a fan of the tan followers personally. I was one of the ones responsible for the problems with the tan followers personally being brought up to Colt and Colt got Picitinny to stop production and recall all tan followers and get the feed lip geometry fixed.
@ I am a sample size of one of course. All of the rounds that I have fired and have been fired for the last 5 years at my unit are all 2012 or sometimes 2014 headstamps. I heavily dislike the USGI mags in general but was surprised to not see any damage from the tan follower mags feeding. Working with a couple different ODAs they use Lancers L5AWM charcoal colored mags as their standard and have had good success with them with A1 and MK262 and MK318 barrier rounds.
Appreciate the content. I’m going to have to chrono some of these A1 rounds to see what results I get.
Great review
Many. Thx
Keep up good work.
The Army is always looking for the magic bullet. Accurate out to 1,000 yds. Lethal at the same distance, able to penetrate an inch of steel. Lighter than a feather.
Phenomenal information, thank you.
i seen this M 855A1 tested against regular 55 grain ammo and it tested out the same so im not sure how we are saying we have higher pressures, the video i watched just came out around 3 weeks or a month ago from today.
Yeah I think Chris is working with old information
@@rklkify 👍
1 Why not decrease the gas port size and increase the buffer spring strength to "slow it down"??
2 Increase the metallurgy requirements for the barrels and feed ramps. Don't they double the chrome lining on "machine guns"?
It’s not just the propellant, its how the longer harder bullet that requires more energy to push it down the bore which increases pressures as one factor (causing barrel wear) plus the need to increase velocity in a 14.5 in bbl. Not to mention its use in a 20 in bbl by the way. The problem really is the construction of the “green” bullet. It’s a much more complex dance the physics and all that make all this work.
other than mixing such ammo with tracers, to deal with moving cars or choppers, I don't see any point in the stuff, I carry one such 30 Rd mag, I've got a mag full of 69 gr bthp match ammo, in case I"m forced to be out in the open, in daylight, but the rest of my 5.56 mags are loaded with 60 gr Nosler Partition softpoints. the difference in effect vs ball ammo is astounding, provable on animals. This is especially true from short barreled rifles. I intend to handle almost every problem, if shtf, with the 60gr Aquila subsonic 's, the CMMG rimfire conversion unit for the AR-15 and the 5.56 silencer, at night, preferably holding the' rimfire units bolt shut so as to have no more noise than a BB gun and not flash at all.
unclad multipiece projectiles for handguns had problems with the Geneva and Vienna conventions. The original, the first, CETME 7.92x40 mm cartridge was a copper or brass clad aluminum projectile . It was dennounced, amongst others by FN in Belgium, as contrary to the Geneva conventions and susequently dropped.
Stupendous. Just superior information.
I was issued this in 2012 . They called it EPR . I was told it was a pure upgrade and could cut through our level 4 plates . My dumb ass believed every word
EPR program a massive failure? 6.8X51mm says, "Hold my beer"
6.8 program is just money laundering. It will never be viable because it is not intended to be.
M200 will always be my favorite. Works great up close.
😂
The engraving forces have more to do with chamber pressure than bullet material. M855A1 projectile in and of itself represents minimal increase in barrel wear. In testing, properly built and maintained weapons did not see a serious degradation in weapon life. Something that does in fact break bolts is running these guns soaking wet with oil. Look up what that does to bolt face thrust forces.
Sooo... the diameter of the bullet should be reduced and maybe add some ribs to it (rifling bands) ? ? ?
Perhaps the true purpose of the 855a1 IS to destroy the guns, thereby paving the way for the new Sig design of (absurdly heavy) battle rifle and a new cartridge.
Fascinating! Would love to see similar vidoes on the USMC MK318 Mod 1 and the British L31A1, to find out how they compare.
Unfortunately, neither are readily available for testing.
MK318 Mod1's core will typically OUT penetrate in soft tissue M855A1. However it's ability against any barriers would be less than that of A1 because of the lack of a penetrator. I've tested the MK318 Mod1 on my channel.
The results and test are showing different than what you have reported in this video. It has now been reported that the psi isn't much more than M855 and a test i saw showed that it DEFINITELY wasn't going any faster. Also, in gel it shows clear DEVESTATION! There isn't a cartridge made that shows the carnage this one does especially considering how well it does with penetration of barriers. That has been MANY test. I will admit i only saw one test that showed it isn't going any faster than M855. One thing for sure is how well it performs in balistics gel. Explosion with MANY different wound tracks MUCH better than M855. Much better penetration than M855. Same velocity as M855 and slightly better accuracy vs M855 is what i have seen. So are you now saying the velocity is the same because takes more PSI to shove it through the barrel and its getting more drag? If that is the case why is 14.5" velocity of M855A1 vs M855 the same and so is 20" velocity? At some point with barrel length you would think there would start to have a difference one way or another because of the drag. More barrel means more drag.
I have right in front of me the gel shots from both. It Is NOT significantly better than the M855. Not at all. Don’t know what tests you are referring to but i did my own unbiased testing. Believe whatever you will.
@SmallArmsSolutions can you post the test please. Garandthumb, MAC and others tell a different story.
@@SmallArmsSolutions I'd like to know the parameters for the gel tests, 855's problems don't start until velocity drops below frag threshold, so comparing gel tests at 10 yards with 14.5" barrels is pointless. At 100 or 200 yards, or at 50 from sub-10" barrels, there'll be more applicable data.
All the independent tests back up US Army testing.
Far from a failure, M855A1 has been a massive success story that has revolutionized small arms cartridge design. If you note, ALL new rounds with any steel content are being made to EPR design. M80A1 is beginning to slowly replace M80, and ADVAP (M1158) is slated to/is beginning to replace M993 because it provides equal or BETTER armor penetration with FAR superior soft target performance.
So yeah. This "mistake" is such a bad one that everyone's starting to look at it for the future.
@@SmallArmsSolutionsand how is your testing more relevant than any other methodologically sound tests?
Frankly, this video is inaccurate. M855 and M885A1 have similar performance up close at like 12 feet, however once it gets to beyond 150 meters things change. Beyond 150 meters M855 suffers greatly as its fragmentation relies heavily on instability and yaw leading to a low yaw impact which means it can travel through a target without causing massive injury. While M855A1 can produce massive injury at greater ranges than M855 while doing it consistently as its not as instability or yaw dependent as M855.
Your opinion I respect but disagree
@@SmallArmsSolutions I don't think it's a matter of opinion, it's well documented and something that you can reproduce yourself, many people have here on RUclips with ballistic gelatin blocks and different barrel lengths. M855 does not reliably fragment below 2,500 feet per second, it's that simple. It's shown by recovered bullets/fragments from testing conducted by the Army.
Col. Rene Studler is looking up from the pit and saying "Good job Army Ordinance! "👍
Excellent video, thanks.
Daahyuum! U 'splaned it so well, even I understood 75% of it. Congrats & TY!
Always good, thanks
You can glance at that round tell it's hard on barrels.
I would love to see a video on m855vs m855a1 vs. the marines mk318 round that congress made them stop using.
Thought about buying some of these rounds but hearing you speak on these its not worth the risk or damage to my 2009 SR-556.
If you are looking for reliable information on military weapons and ammo, there is no better channel or person to turn to than Chris Bartocci aka; SAS
Received “America’s Rifle” several weeks ago. Great book. Loaded with details on the military development of what is clearly the greatest military firearm ever devised. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
The fun fact is no 5,56 round would pierce "near peer adversary body armor" e.g. level 4 armoe plate. But any 5.56 round is able to defeat the rest 80% of a modern body armor set, which is anti-fragment rated only. That fact makes 6.8 mm rounds irrelevant (at least at the desired distances, not like point blank) and monstrous 5,56 AP rounds questinable. Never heard any complains about standard 7N10 (5,45x59, improved penetration - not an AP) being unable to defeat any ukrainian body armor out there, and those guys are stuffed with both NATO gimmicks and Chinese commercial products
Some of these comments are making me question this just being another big Army spending fest for the sake of it.
What you just described with regard to barrel wear, feed ramp destruction and specificity to mags you can use tells me this ammo is a fail. When your equipment fails, you're out of the fight.
Super interesting to hear you gk through the data
So, it's sounding like the best solution for ammo is to keep M193 out of a 20" barrel, open tip boat tail ammo for carbines and calling in artillery if you need to use M855A1.
I read your article on this, always great information. What lab did you have test this ammunition?
Thank you. 👍
OK, I'm only an amateur - but I thought that the US SOCOM adoption of the URGI solved issues with the M855A1. Also Chris - would you consider doing a review of the URGI program and the associated upper?
No, the characteristics of the M855A1 still damage barrels. The URG-I is only CHF chrome lined. Not really any better for M855A1 use. Nobody has a barrel yet. It has to do with the pressure curve as well
@SmallArmsSolutions Thank you!
The M855 breaking apart is yaw and velocity dependent, which is why it is unreliable in terminal performance. This unreliability is well known, so it seems a little disingenuous to compare the M855A1, designed not to be yaw dependent against an ideal example of the M855.
Also, having a copper core is not the main reason for reduced barrel life. That increased chamber pressure, comes with increased burn temperature. The throat of the barrel is exposed to a lot more heat. Heat is what kills barrels; increased friction does indeed cause more heat, but much less so than a compressed charge of double base powder running about 17% higher chamber pressure.
gotta say, firing the 855A1, I found it more accurate.
Before I even watch, they should’ve switched to the 6.8 SPC. It was political that they did not. Meaning, the decision was not based on merit or performance.
I heard 6.8 spc had problems ... including broken bolts
I agree with you
@@autumnfragrance6326 No. That might be projection by the assholes at Alexander Arms. The Grendel, which has it's place, had broken bolts and a new design.
I'm considering getting a 6.8 after seeing the ballistic performance. Holy moly that thing can penetrate.
@@HAHA.GoodMeme Well, it is good for it's intended design. Replacement of the green tip in an M4. It is much better at the long ranges in Afghanistan. One report said SF and their 10" barrels (give or take) were a huge problem. Which is why they did the original testing for themselves.
Why is this video getting pushed at me so hard? Ive watched one or two of your shows before, but this video has been at the top of my feed since yesterday.
No idea.
The marine corps stumbling into the perfect solution because they wanted new mags ❤
Damn didn’t know I would get a whole video from peacekeeper on 55a1 after he stopped selling it
Who is peacekeeper? I don’t sell ammunition nor guns.
I want it so bad because of its performance in seven to ten inch barrels for home defense.
For my use cases, I don't need it to be over pressured and it will work just fine.
best 556 round in my opinion