Test: M855 vs M855A1 is the M855A1 really that good?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- Small Arms Solutions M855A1 Article: smallarmssolut...
Unfiltered MAC on Twitter: / mac_arms
Join Patreon and support MAC! / militaryarms
Political Comentary: / @secondlegacy
Follow and support us on Utreon!: utreon.com/c/m...
Follow us on Rumble: rumble.com/use...
MAC T-Shirt Store: ballisticink.c...
Modern Gun School: www.mgs.edu
Challenge Targets Discount Code: MAC556 (www.challenget...)
The M855A1 was intended to fix the shortcomings of the M855 ball round. It was intended to not just out perform it but to also be "green" by not using any lead in the bullet construction. We test the M855 against the new M855A1 to see how they stack up.
#M855 #M855A1 #556
Alright a few corrections. I have a pretty good amount of knowledge and experience with this round and know people who have more than me.
1. The terminal effect is correct, but the advantage is it performs that same way at lower velocities. Ive seen it perform exact same as this test as low as 1900 FPS. So either a short barrel or at longer ranges it performs where other rounds will lose effectiveness at the lower velocity.
2. In the initial tests the chamber pressure was bumped considerably and was causing increased wear and tear. They lower the pressure to compensate (hence why the velocity wasnt much higher than M855). Your headstamp says LC14 and from my understanding the rounds after LC11 should be the reduced pressure.
3. Due to the change in pressure, the round doesnt damage the rifles at an extreme rate. CRANE had tested MK18 and URGI rifles in 12,600 round endurance tests using full auto dumps, suppressor, not cleaning, and the bolts all broke between 7000- 11,000 rounds, not 3000. The barrels and feed ramps and bolt carrier all lasted the entirety of the test.
4. The round can damage the feed ramps so they changes the feed angle on new magazines (Magpul Gen3, Tan USGI) to compensate for this.
I have used this round from mil spec or better rifles (Daniel Defense M4A1 and Colt M4A1) and have had no issues with accelerated wear. As far as the accuracy, you were mostly correct. Its not match grade as the military claimed but it generally is a little more accurate than green tip. From shorter barrels like 10.5 and 14.5 you do tend to see sometimes 50fps increase depending on environmental conditions but sometimes no increase as in your test. Hope this info helps.
Some amazing info there, thanks for the corrections. Always good to hear from someone who operates with M855A1 and has real world experience.
Interesting. I had always thought it was less accurate than standard M855 due to construction. Thanks for the great info!
@@MattH-wg7ou no. But it's certainly not match grade as the military claims
Thank you for this information!! Very interesting!! The velocity question was quite puzzling until I read your comment!!
Great insight. Thank you! 😎👍
In 2011 I was briefed on this round while attending Maneuver Senior Leaders Course at FT Benning. At that time most of us heard that this was being adopted because it was eco-friendly. During the brief we were informed that that was what the developers told to the government to help sell it and get it funded. The real reason for its leadless construction was uniformity for enhanced accuracy, penetration, and lethality. In 2012 I deoloy d my light infantry platoon to a highly kinetic area along the mountainous border of Afghanistan/Pakistan and we used 855a1 exclusively. Out of my mk12 I consistently got 1/2-3/4 moa groups. My M4s were in the 2-3 moa range which is close to the accuracy I achieved with mk262 mod 0 in an m4. I cant speak to velocity because we didn’t chrono, we were zeroing at our range in our operational environment. I can say anecdotally that the lethality seemed decidedly improved over green tip from my experience in Iraq. As far as wear on the weapons, we fired thousands of rounds of this stuff in combat, upon returning to CONUS our armorers did full inspections checking wear and found zero evidence of enhanced wear. I lovevthis round, but it is pricey and I tend to stick with green tip or 77 smk in my own rifles.
My experiences have been similar with it. The only examples of increased wear I’ve witnessed personally from it were BCT M16A2’s cracking locking lugs. The M4A1’s that were being used alongside in the same armory, using the same annual round count were not experiencing issues such as that, so it quite obviously was more of an issue with the age of the rifles.
I do not understand why, given the lower velo effects of the 855A1 compared to 855, they have not put the material science to work on a 77gr version. Or just spiced up the velo on the 77gr smk's. Although I acknowledge the already higher pressure of the mk262, I cannot imagine finding that the way to go is, wipe the slate and go with an unproven round in the 6.8×51 and an entirely new service rifle, rather than just funding the work to maximize performance and lethality of the things we know work in current platforms. I'm sure someone somewhere made the math work but, seems like a bad move right before the big game.
@@joshshepherd5660the 6.8 program is just another money pit for the defense industry and someone’s pet project at the top. I think it’s insane for us to replace the 556. It’s a really great round.
@@joshshepherd5660 I know a little bit about military procurement and how things like, the adoption of the 6.8X51mm weapons system come about.
Here is what usually happens. First, just because we have been using the cartridge and/or the weapons system for more than 60 years, someone said, “We need a new weapons system. This one is old.” Both the cartridge and the guns have greatly evolved over their 60 years of use, and they are both much loved by those that carried them. “Let’s forget all that,” some bureaucrat says, “we need new ones.” There is only one weapons system I know of that has been in service longer and it is the M2 (Ma Deuce) .50 cal Machine gun. I haven’t heard of anyone trying to replace it.
Now the bureaucrat needs to find reasons, other than they are old for why they need to be replaced. The bureaucrat says, “I know. We need to defeat the new advanced body armor.” Body armor made by an adversary that we will probably never face, and which could probably be defeated by putting a little science behind our current chamberings, like putting steel core “armor piercing” bullets in our 5.56x45. Oh…we are already doing that.
One reason isn’t quite enough, so the bureaucrat comes up with another one. We need a cartridge and weapon that are more accurate at a longer distance with greater lethality. Of all the reasons for a new weapons system, this one is probably the most legitimate. We learned in Afghanistan, especially in the mountain regions, that we needed a cartridge that was more effective than the 5.56x45 at distances in excess of 300 meters.
The last reason and most important reason (allegedly) for needing a new weapons system was to save costs. The bureaucrat believes that standardizing multiple weapons systems to [a] single caliber across multiple weapons platforms will save money. We need to remember that the NGSW project’s primary purpose was to replace three guns and two cartridges; e.g. the M4, M249 SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon), both in 5.56x45mm and the M240 Machine Gun in 7.62x51mm. The cost to the military would (allegedly) be greatly reduced if the military used a single caliber rather than have a variety of calibers. Here is where the bureaucrat gets it wrong and where DoD needs far greater input from end users. The bureaucrat doesn’t understand that a variety of different weapons systems are required to meet different mission sets. Furthermore, the bureaucrat knows nothing about firearms and is completely unaware that the military has millions of dollars’ worth of useable parts and equipment already on hand for our current inventory of weapons, and that most of those parts could continue to be used if we just adopted a caliber like 6x38mm (6mm ARC) that can use all of those parts and meet the needs for distance and lethality.
The bureaucrat now has his list of reasons, and he convinces higher up bureaucrats, which includes flag grade staff officers that they need a new weapons system. Now the bureaucrat moves on to Step 2, which is to put out to an “approved” list of vendors a Request For Bid, asking them to make weapon(s) that use the same cartridge and then comeback to DoD and convince us we need their particular gun built around their proprietary cartridge and wa-la we have new weapon(s) system [and] a new proprietary cartridge. A cartridge that has no purpose in the civilian world and is of questionable need by the military.
Personally, I don’t think it will last. Do we need to replace the 5.56x45 cartridge? Probably, and that is because we really need a cartridge that can reach out and touch someone at distances greater than 300 meters. Do we need a new weapons system? Hell no, and here is why. The current AR16/M16/M4 platform is easily adaptable to various calibers and configurations to fit completely different mission sets. Furthermore, we have a ton of parts in inventory and can buy what we need from various vendors for pennies on the dollar.
Bottom line, I expect the M7 to go the way of the M14 for the exact same reasons, plus the added issue of excessive barrel wear from the unneeded higher pressures. If I were a betting man, which I am not, I believe that the 6mm ARC (6x38mm) will become the new standard cartridge for the military ground-pounders, but that is another story and this comment is already way too long.
@armeddiver I am 100% with you on all of that. The .243/6mm projectile is very effective and tends to have a higher b.c. Obviously that results in what we want. It's in keeping with the same reasons I don't see why we wouldn't, more widely, make use of the 77gr 5.56 loads before ditching a VERY developed weapon system with plenty of viable parts inventory as you mentioned. I hope you're right. I completely agree on one thing. The m7 is absolutely going to have a place in small arms history right next to the m14. At most i could see it being adopted using the 7.62 nato in the same rolls we currently use that cartridge. If nothing else for the officers/politicians to save face and point to a new rifle they procured...in the end all costing far more than if they had listened to, as you mentioned, the guys on the ground that know what works.
Feed ramp issues were fixed years ago, gen 3 pmags, and epm usgi magazines feed m855A1 just fine.
Agreed welcome to 2013 to everyone who didn't know lol.
Yeah same deal with early batches being higher pressures. Idk if they intentionally made it higher pressure and figured it wasnt worth it or by accident, but they lowered the pressure of A1 pretty quickly after it first came out and isnt an issue now.
Link to your statement?
@@Nick-sx6jm Link or proof to your statement...
@hairydogstail Articles and videos from over the years. Im sure you can find a chart or video of someone chronographing M855A1 with a 2015 headstamp or older and see the velocities were much higher.
The overpressure issue was resolved nearly a decade ago by using different propellant. The design of the projectile is the source of its effectiveness. It's essentially a steel (or tungsten) broadhead with a beveled copper slug behind it, encased in a copper jacket. The steel punctures, the slug yaws and the jacket explodes into fragments and this happens at ranges far beyond those of M193's or M855's cavitation thresholds, which are reliant on velocity.
Small Arms Solutions data set on the M855A1 and M855 chamber pressures, use a condition M855A1 at 125F with no mention of M855's temp, and the report is 11 yrs old. Pressures have been dialed back a bit, but indeed the A1 is still warmer..
@BuffRANGE , thank you. So much bad and/or old information being thrown around.
It was also an issue with poor powder choice. Pre '11 production was a more temp-sensitive powder. We now use a much less temp-sensitive powder loading.
@@anthonybarker9123 Based on the velocity testing I've done, there's still a bit of variance using it at 55F vs 85-90F.
A less dense bullet (no lead) requires a longer bullet to stay at the same weight. That length reduces the volume in the casing and should increase the pressure even if the powder charge is the same. This is still reduced from the early days of the pissing hot pressures seen when first released.
Interesting results; quick footnote, I recently saw somebody using either a heat gun or a hair dryer to heat up the sides of the gel blocks, ever so slightly melting just the surface, which made them almost as clear as glass. I wouldn't say it would be necessary to do ALL the sides, but for the sake of comparing ballistic performance, it might be worth the couple extra minutes to try this; it made seeing the results both in slow-mo and afterwards MUCH more visible. Not crucial by any means, but figured I'd mention, I'd never it done before, and was impressed with the results. Great video as always!
Newer loads are a lot lighter. This is the A1 we shoot now. The feedramp issue was blown out of proportion and was likely a damaged magazine just looking at where the projectile was digging into the feed ramp. I have put at least 1000rds of A1 through my personal rifle on a military range and have not encountered any crazy wear that would have otherwise not occurred.
Yeah the Article he is quoting is from 2017, and almost all of it has since been debunked. They fixed the feed ramp issues with new magazines, gen 3 pmags feed m855A1 perfectly fine. It even mentions that new magazines fixed the feed ramp issues in the article, but he must have forgot to mention that. .....I am not sure what the point of this video is actually, just to discourage people from buying up all the ammo he wants for himself maybe?? Lmao hahaha
Where did you get 1k rounds of A1?
This. We used M855A1 extensively and had zero issues. The higher pressures were when it was first introduced and caused premature wear, so they loaded it more standard pressure which corrected the problem. M855A1 fragments violently at much lower velocities so it's still extremely effective in 14.5 at 400-500m where M855 would stop fragmenting at 90-120m. The damaged feed ramps has been widely debunked years ago too.
M855A1 is great ammo and given it's increased barrier penetration makes an awesome combat round.
@@XuroX. They weren’t mine sadly. I’m able to take my personal rifle to the range with me when we are shooting and I shoot the issued rounds through it.
Yeah gen 3 P mags were supposed to completely fix the A1 feed ramp issue as well.
Giving consideration to all of the information you have presented along with my own, I will continue to be satisfied with standard M855. Thanks for taking the time and expense to do these tests.
MAC’s information is more than a decade old and obsolete. Read some of the comments on here. Feed ramp issue isn’t an issue with any modern follower, and was barely an issue without.
The pressures after 2011 were reduced.
The M855 is dependent on fleet use for fragmentation, the M855A1 is not. And M855A1 will fragment at much lower velocities.
M855A1 will defeat cinder block/brick barriers like a 7.62 M80, far better than M855A1.
Is M855A1 worth the price it costs for a civilian? Not really. There are cheaper bullets that are still good. But it is WAAAY better than M855.
Feed ramp damage totally incorrect, the slide shown is the only example from 82nd ABN. It was bad mags, round impacting too low hitting aluminum lower, improperly seated barrels leaving gap between feed ramp and lower..... It is internet lore at this point.
Correct! 100%
Well, there is a bit of truth in every lie. The black follower did not present the M855 at an optimal angle for feeding, so they developed the green follower that does present the projectile at a slightly higher angle.
The green follower did not present the M855A1 at an optimal angle for the bullet's profile. So they designed a new follower to raise it slightly higher again.
There was no mention of feed ramp wear in the documents. Just optimizing the follower for reliability.
@@donwyoming1936 M855: tan follower = Magpul M2 and M855A1: blue follower = Magpul M3 got to love Nantick Labs stealing designs.
@@donwyoming1936 what an awful adage.
@@donwyoming1936 Black follower was replaced because, during rapid fire it would tilt in the mag causing a stoppages Nothing to do with bullet angle. Green follower came out to address the follower tilt, helped fix that.
Gimme a 1:12 barrel and some M193 and I'm happy. Kickin' it old school. 👍 Btw, really surprised by the A1's performance. Nice.
aR15 tested that myth in gel at high speed. There is no reason to believe that 1:12 offers any ballistic advantage over 1:7-1:9 with M193
@@BuffRANGE 1:12 does not shoot faster. It tumbles earlier and more reliably in soft targets.
I prefer 1:9". The 1:9" twist is really the best of all worlds for all military bullet weights. While 1:7" is okay (though still faster than ideal) with 14.5-16" barrels, you REALLY don't want to be using it on a 20".
@@BuffRANGE Been wondering about this for a long time but never could find much info. Thanks
@@BuffRANGE Interesting. I'll have to look into that. Thanks. I mainly said 1:12 because my favorite ARs are the old SP1s of my youth.
Something to note. Many people including myself have recorded that the projectile will still explosively fragment at velocities as low as 1600-1400fps. This alone greatly improves the terminal effect of the cartridge as a whole never mind improved velocities in shorter barrels. Much the same with the m80a1, which the projectile would be one of the best options for 300blk.
Thanks!
An armor penitration test would be interesting and I would also be interested in how the m855a1 performs from a shorter barrel.
There is a video out there that he tests from 7" to 22"
A1 in a 18" will defeat level 3+ armor out to about 200 yards. IRAQVETEREN8888 did the test years back and that A1 just zipped right though it.
I think Buffman range has a few barrel lengths of the M855A1 tested apart from his 22inch.
Concur you should do this from 14.5” and 20” barrels.
I suspect that the loss of velocity from the suppressor would probably make up for the longer barrel. Just my uneducated guess.
@@pauld5265 Suppressors do not reduce velocity, this isn't COD. Matter of fact some even increase it, although not by much especially when you are dealing with crazy rifle speeds like in the case of 5.56.
I have a older AR with a 1/9 chrome lined barrel. It has given me good results with green tip, however more consistent with 55gr.
1-9 and green tip are an ideal combination. My best results are with 1-9 as well
That was the rifling for 62 gn ammunition that target shooters were using in 223 or 5.56. But M855 (SS109) was speced for 1/7 twist for military. I've seen some other countries "M855" ammunition that's not as "hot" as US speced 5.56 and another one that is quite "hot" compared with it.... I wish I'd bought a half dozen cases of it.
@@krisrhebergen yup. 62gr M855 performs best out of 1:9. However, the military adopted 1:7 because the M856 tracer round needed a faster twist to stabilize (it's even longer than M855). And 1:7 stabilizes M855 adequately as well.
Velocity comparison out of a 14.5 would be interesting. If the A1 burns it's powder that much more quickly then maybe you're getting notable friction losses. It is worth checking if there is a significant difference in the shorter barrels.
I don’t believe that’s possible. The gasses would have to immediately stop pushing at 14.5” and the 3.5” of barrel would suddenly create a substantial amount of drag. I don’t see that happening, plus the gun isn’t showing any signs of being over gassed from the higher pressure. Cases aren’t flying straight forward and recoil hasn’t increased noticeably. 🤷♂️
@Militaryarmschannel was gonna say the same as you but you beat me to it
@@MilitaryarmschannelI don’t believe it’s friction related either. The powder is faster burning which creates the higher chamber pressure, but yields a similar total energy release. It’s trying to push faster in a shorter amount of time, not a greater velocity yield overall. I took a long range class hosted by Kevin Owens, the head of SOCOM procurement who was involved with that project; that was his explanation of the cartridge.
@@gcm423 That's what I wondered. If it burns the powder faster it should also reduce the huge burning flash of powder from shorter barrels right?
@@Militaryarmschannel Friction aside, OP's recommendation is about meeting the A1's design goals. The fact that it doesn't get drastically higher velocities out of longer barrels doesn't tell us anything meaningful about whether it performs as intended in SBRs. You wouldn't use an Uzi or longslide 1911 to
chrono specialized micro-pistol 9mm defensive loads and claim those results as proof of anything P365 owners care about.
Yes it's good.
It's so good we should all be able to buy it off the shelf. Both that and the m80 a1
The military and manufacturers are going to get rid of their green tip ammo and buy up/stockpile all the A1 ammo for a while. After the military is satiated, we'll be able to get it for non-insane prices.
Just use MK262 77gr otm and 69gr otm smk or 77gr tmk. No real reason to use 855a1, it doesn't penetrate armor and its not that accurate. It is good for barrier penetration but its not better than the good match grade loads available these days.
@@armorers_wrench 80A1 is fantastic at armor penetration. Level 4 out of a 300 win mag
@armorers_wrench
855A1 absolutely penetrates armor.
So much so that armor companies had to classify it as special threat for plates beyond M193 and regular M855.
There are plenty of videos showing that 855A1 will defeat level 3 and 3+ armor consistently, until you get the specific special threat plates or level 4s
M855A1 is in stock now at bkingsfirearms. I am not sure if they have a limit on how much you can buy, or what shipping would cost, but 19.99 for 10 rounds is best I have seen.
I enjoyed the video. I only wish we could have seen these tests with military length barrels like a 14.5 and then maybe a 20. So we could have a idea what this stuff does out of a M4 and an m16.
Buffmanrange RUclips channel does ammo tests exclusively. He JUST did a test
Like Joecentral said, Buffman Range has an excellent video on M855A1
18" is a military length rifle just not as popular as 14.5" and 20". Hell, 16" is even a military length now. 10.3", 14.5", 16", 18" and 20" have ALL been used in 5.56 military rifles past and/or present.
But I agree 14.5" for sure should have been used and it would have been nice to see 16" and 20" as well.
@@ShizawnSanders True but you won't see anyone in the US military carrying an 18" AR of any type. Even the M27 is a 16.5" barrel.
I'm glad to see somewhat minimal POI shift between the two ammo types - even if results are unique to your setup. For a 2015 trip to Baghdad, we zeroed with M855 during training stateside. We drew ammo in Kuwait just before entering Iraq, and saw our new rounds had spinny bronze looking tips instead of green ones.
The 855A1 round is leadless but is the same weight as the original M855 which means the projectile is longer and has increased bearing surface that will increase drag inside the barrel. In order for the longer and same weight bullet to overcome the in creased drag in the barrel but still produce the same velocity the pressure had to be increased significantly.
Well said. Leadless bullets do not flex and conform to rifling as well as cup and core lead bullets. This increases pressure even more.
@@DominicZelenakdoes not the lead and cup flex to make a better seal in the barrel? I think that would retain more pressure than something less flexible.
Also less space for powder
@@Kobriks1 less space for powder raises pressure too. I think designers would stay away from that.
@@yourarsenaladvisor Well they didn't hence higher pressures for the same velocity
One of the SF guys I know called this M855A1 the Hand of God when referring to it. Said it really changed changed the effectiveness game of the 5.56.
Thank you for sharing the video and doing the testing.
Great video. Range ammo is just that. Ball ammo is for the Military. I use Barnes 308 & 223 TTSX that’s designed for hunting deer sized game in both my AR 10 and AR 15 for those times when it might be needed. That would be an interesting comparison. Also extremely accurate cartridges. Thanks for your channel.
It would be cool to see that A1 hitting armor and barriers. I’d enjoy that.
I would like to see some hard barrier penetration testing, because M855A1 and its 7.62x51 relative were supposed to be better at piercing armor then the previous versions.
Yes, I would like to see barrier testing. Maybe also some armor testing?
At 50M, M855A1 from a 20” barrel does a number on level 4.
My understanding is that the pressure of M855A1 was dropped several years ago. Its main advantages are more consistent terminal effect and better behind-barrier effect.
Mac, I think if you have a few of the A1's left, would be to pull the bullet and weigh the powered charge between the two rounds. Maybe even pull the 62 grain from a standard 62, put the new 62 into it and see if the velocity changes.
This is why the LMT Enhanced BCG and Bolt is king of the hill for 14.5” carbine systems. Decreases the chamber pressure by 10% before opening, fully supports the case, has dual extractor springs, and is damn near invincible.
Modern Tactica Shooting (Jeff Gurwitch) did a detailed video on A1. I believe he stated that the feed ramp issues were from mags that were being used at that time. Definitely worth checking out.
I'd love to see it tested against 75gr and 77gr in the Mk12.
72 and (drum roll) 69
I want to see more of that mk12 in general
77gr TMK does well but not sure if it would have out performed A1. SMK would not have out performed it so that would have been a waste. TMK might have had a chance to match it or out do it maybe.
@@trey9971 What has a 72 gr, or was that part of the joke?
@thalo215 Seriously. I've said for a while, why do they not take those things that clearly work very well from the 885a1 and make a 72+gr version that is as +p as they are willing to deal with for rifle lifespan?
It penetrates insane and fragments insane, best of both worlds
A leadless bullet will be longer for the same weight. It will therefore take up more case capacity. Less capacity means higher pressure for the same velocity. Thanks for testing this ammo!
M855A1 is the standard round even down to basic now ;)
Different powders have different burn rates. The A1 powder is probably very fast burning resulting in higher chamber pressures and achieving maximum velocity sooner down the barrel. The M855 has a slower burning powder resulting in lower chamber pressures but requires more barrel to reach optimal velocity.
One thing is constant between the two and that’s 5.56 case capacity. Both have similar powder weights yielding roughly the same total energy. Only difference is burn rate. A longer 18 in barrel was used in this test allowing both bullets to reach near maximum velocity.
IMO it would have been more useful to use a 14.5in barrel in the test. My hypothesis is the A1 powder would be mostly burnt in a 14.5 barrel allowing the bullet to reach optimal velocity. On the contrary, the M855 would still have lots of unburnt powder resulting in lower velocity.
@6:10 "They're called FBI blocks." You're slick. Some know what you're doing.
I went through MGS with my GI bill. It was a great program. I started up business right away too!
Good show!!! Great information! Thanks,
Michael Herrell
Tim you need to revisit this with the proper barreled setup. There's a reason the round was optimized for a 14.5" barrel vs the 20" barrel M193/M855 were optimized for.
This is really valuable side by side testing. Outstanding content yet again, substantive info that I learn from and use for my choices.
The powder in A1 has a significantly faster burn rate. This causes the higher chamber pressure but gets it up to the same velocities as regular 855 out of a 20" barrel but out of a 14.5"
AKA, it gets it up to the same speed with 5.5" less of barrel. After that there's little to know performance gain, hence why you only saw a 10fps gain out of your 18" MK12
It's nice to see 3000 fps and change with the 18" barrel and the Green Tip. That's my method at the moment. 1/8 twist supposedly lends better accuracy with the 62 grain, who knows? They make heavier grain like 70, could you maybe explore the benefits and fails of a selection of those cartridges? Would they be better for deer hunting?
In the national gard we ran ten 20 round magazines threw an M4a1 in full auto with no feed ramp Problems during an end of rang ammo burn off.
We did the same thing and there was no damage reported, but brass pickup killed morale lol
I agree with your assessment 💯 percent! Thanks Tim and Jason.
The place i saw the A1 shine was out of a 7 in barrel was still over 2200 fps with out of a 7 in barrel is amazing
You just verified what I've been hearing... Thanks Much!
All I know is that M855A1 chrono’d at 2750 out of an 11in barrel when we were running a range session for the marksmanship team at our unit. That’s absurdly quick out of such a short barrel.
What year and or year headstamps?
I’d like to know the year as well.
@@Jason32Bourne honestly couldn’t tell you. Sorry. Never thought to look.
@@ifrxenvoy124 I take it you shot them all?
@@Jason32Bourne yeah. Any ammo we get issued has to be expended before we leave the range. Once we are done with scheduled practice, we usually shoot the rest through our personal weapons. Though I wouldn’t fire A1 through my rifle for reasons stated in the video.
From a reddit user "I'm a nurse and a veteran. In the army my role was to produce tactical military intelligence but I also moonlighted as a combat life saver.
I can tell you explicitly and with absolute certainty that wounds to your torso inflicted by 5.56mm bullets will almost certainly incapacitate you if they are even close to center mass and you will die without immediate and likely heroic medical intervention. That is my professional opinion based on real life experience and I am all too happy to tell any interweb warriors who say otherwise that they are full of shit.
When you hear soldiers talking about shooting people in the chest with 5.56mm rounds and then watching them walk away, what they are describing is called missing."
I am a Vietnam Veteran and all I can say about the 5.56 is that all we had fifty-odd years ago was the M193 and M196 Tracer. Against people they generally hit like a ton. If I wanted to I could describe the results but I do not. Two I personally know about were Americans. Both lived. I never personally saw a small person walk away with a 5.56 hit. Ever. I saw more than a few people struck with the M193 in limbs; total destruction was the result.For me the travesty in the last fifty-odd years was the change from 1/12 to 1/7 barrels. Filipinos used the M193 with complete satisfaction; so did the Israelis. It really irritates me to no end when some fucking genius with too much time on their hands just HAS to make "corrections" on a weapon and ammunition that has been proven in actual combat, not milk jugs and jello. Reminds me of the assholes who worked for Robert McNamara who interfered with the round after General LeMay decided to accept it as the Rifle, M16 in 1963. By the way, the Army bought the rifle and ammo based on ballistics AT 200 YARDS, NOT AT THE MUZZLE. So any test is generally bullshit at 5 or 10 meters.
Although im sure many of those cases could indeed be misses, there are enough reports of clean pass-throughs from a lot of credible sources to confirm it does happen sometimes. It may be uncommon and anomalies but bullets can do weird things sometimes as there are so many factors. It has been speculated (and supported by various data) that many of these cases could have to do with the amount of bullet yaw upon impact, which can vary a lot between projectiles, distance and barrel twist rates. There is a "sweet spot" distance for many rifle/ammo combinations where the bullet will be perfectly stabilized with zero yaw and, thus, less likely for certain projectiles to tumble or fragment upon impact. It is believed that this could be the cause for at least some of these cases. Some of the research on this topic is quite interesting. I was surprised to see a lot of 556 loadings are still yawing quite a bit out to 100ish yards before the bullets become remotely stable, and the twist rate differences can have a massive effect upon results
@@tomgoodwin9161 You can blame the Marines for that one. They were the lead agency for the M16A2 and adoption of the M855 because they are obsessed with long range shooting performance.
@@tomgoodwin9161 The Vietnam era loading was more effective. It was much more lightly balanced due to the twist rate 1:12. So it was much more effective in transferring the energy to the target.
When the USA introduced the faster twist rates to adapt to the NATO 5.56 loadings, the amount of icepick style wounds increased. Especially with people who are rather slender.
There was a notable amount of people in the Somalia who demonstrated those sorts of wounds. Granted, there also were a large amount of people taken down by the same ammo. Considering how many people that were taken down, the complaints about inefficacy should be taken seriously in that regard.
I heard they had lowered the pressure down to milspec pressures after the high pressure issues.
Karl at inrange tv launched a video this morning of this stuff screaming through AR500 steel plates
Yes it does a good job at that and
Other armor types.
@@BuffRANGE Ill have to get my hands on some of it and test it out in a video of my own. Id like to see how it handles against mild steel, and if it can out do black tip 30-06
@@theblindsniper9130 It won't out do M2AP. M2AP has that huge LONG core. If you are interested in some, I'd easily send you a handful to help out. Just drop me a DM...
one thing you can do for the clear ballistic is just go over it for one second back and forth with a torch and it gets rid of the mold lines. perfectly clear at that point.
Very thorough and a good watch. Thanks
No clue if it'll have any staying power but I do like what I've been seeing from 6mm Max. Getting nearly 20" barrel velocities out of a 10.5, with a heavier grain bullet and standard chamber pressures is pretty amazing. Also similar to 300BO it only requires a barrel change to shoot.
This is some of the information I've been looking for a long time. Thanks
Loved this video, but I really wished it was done with the 14.5 in bbl . Mac please 🙏 redo this whole video using m885 and m885a1 with a 14.5 in bbl.
There is a different magazine for the a1. It has a blue feed which changes the angle at the feed ramp
Heck, after I past the hump of my time in we had an issue with the bolts of the M4A1’s breaking one to three lugs off at 25,000 rounds during training. Colt replied for us to get titanium bolts. We never bought them because of costs. I ended up stocking 50 to 100 extra bolts during workups to keep the weapons running.
Not testing this out of a 14.5 is a shame
The Army uses standard GI mags which are notorious with having issues of not clearing the feedramp even before M855A1. MagPul magazines fix these issues almost entirely so long as your receivers are from reputable manufacturers the follow all specifications. Basically, use quality equipment to avoid damages like with anything in this world. Cost does affect performance. M855A1 has better terminal ballistics than M855 and keeps that consistency no matter your barrel length and gas system length. It also combines holopoint like ammunition with enhanced penetration capabilities (hence the EPR designation in the name of the round) which makes this round more ideal for both CQC and DMR situations. Using this round with both a MK18 CQBR and an 18" SPR(like the MK12 in this video) uppers on the same lower in essentially what you would want to do. I do agree that the cost is a bit more excessive than it should be but I do think that it is still worth to have as a stockpiled round. Maybe not your main source of ammunition, but definitely one to have a decent quantity of.
Great video Mac. How about some comparisons using soft armor and with clothing using 855 and A1
Soft armor would have no bearing on a rifle projectile like M855 or A1.
I liked your old video of 193 vs 855 and different twist rate barrels.
The reason you don’t see that additional velocity has to do with the additional pressure not being done any more, at least not 10k more PSI, there’s still more pressure but now it’s all due to the longer projectile resulting in only 2-3k more PSI. They backed off due to bolts sheering way too often, in many cases under 6k rounds. It was determined that the added velocity wasn’t necessary due to the projectile performance. The added barrel wear has to do with the length of the bearing surface, the wear in the barrel life has been reduced with the reduction in pressure as well. The feed ramp damage is sorted by using appropriate mags. Chris’ info is extremely dated, like pre-issued dated. These things were sorted very early on. Having used the stuff since it came out, changes were made very early on and most of the concerns either don’t exist with the ammo any more or are mitigated
F=ma. Mass and velocity are inversely proportional, given a specific powder load. So if you increase both mass and powder load, you can easily end up with the same velocity depending on how the math works out. But the point is you have a lot more mass moving at the same velocity. That's going to guarantee superior terminal performance.
The one flaw in the test for 855A1 is that the load is certainly optimized for 14.5/16 inch barrels.
Plenty of testing shows that it performs best on those lengths at only 100-150 fps less than an 18in barrel.
Of all the testing I've seen, 855A1 is best served as a round that you don't buy 1000s of rounds of, because it's far too cost prohibitive.
For civilians, it's best acquired in small batches over time, loaded into mags, and left for HD or SHTF.
855A1 is now well shown to be quite a versatile round, dealing great damage to tissue and being able to defeat a majority of intermediate armor, and it'll even vibe check level 4s pretty solidly.
But you can buy many other types of 556 from various manufacturers that are better…and a lot cheaper. Not worth buying for shtf. Better off buying more cost productive supplies with the extra savings.
@@84kjk Suggestions?
@@Jason32Bourne77gr OTM
@Jason32Bourne better than 855A1 for barrel life and feed ramp life. Plus it's cheaper and won't overgas your BCG if it's not up to par.
I can see M855A1 for shtf but HD really? I think there are far better options for HD, even a Vmax would be better, or a 77grain match, arguably even 55grain fmj, unless you actually intend to shoot through your house lol. Barrier pen shouldn't be much of a concern for HD imo.
Very cool video Tim! Thank you Sir!
Nice video.....The one thing that was missing was your eye pro.
The reason you are not seeing an increase in velocity, but there is an increase in chamber pressure is likely due to the powder burn rate/curve.
The powder they are using is having a faster burn, which in the end may not lead to higher velocities on longer barrels, but can definitely increase velocities on shorter barrels.
Of course, all of this is assuming the powder difference isn’t a myth in itself or that it is actually using the powder mentioned.
As a 300blk business, we deal with extremely short barrels. And due to this we research and test different powders.
If you would like to understand more about these burn curves, give me a call or email us at our website.
Id be happy to talk to you over everything we test as well.
Keep up the good work, I’ve been a long time fan and I hope to hear back from you!
P.S. I cant post the link, but a google search of our username will direct you to our website!
As soon as the M80A1 becomes commercially available in larger quantities, you surely are going to start loading 300BLK EPR, right? Sorry, I know this has nothing to do with what you were talking about. Just REALLY want 300BLK EPR to become available.
I hope he does get in touch with you. Pressure curves are very interesting, if you like to get into the "technical weeds." That's how I try to explain why you can't use smokeless in a black powder rifle. The smokeless curve is much shorter duration and peaks much higher than black powder. Bearing surface also has to do with velocity and accuracy. A typical "round ball" twist in a muzzle loader is 1:66". A "conical bullet", with more bearing area, twist is 1:48". Both will shoot either with the same powder charge, just not as well.
@@Arkancide there is a projectile from ALCO bullets which mimics the m80a1 projectile.
We have been wanting to test these for subsonic use but have not had the time or funding to do so as we have other projects taking up our time.
These are on the heavier end of weight so they may not perform as well as a 130gr projectile from the m80a1
I do highly recommend you check out ALCO bullets when you get a chance!
After 2012 or so, pressures (and velocity) were significantly downloaded on the M855A1. Batches of 2011 and 2012 I chronied from an 18" barrel were screaming out at 3,200 fps (M193 velocities)!!!
Great video. Thank you. This is the kind of information I need. I think based on your test, and what I saw, I'll stick with 77 grain OTM. as my primary.
the good old 5 round 1 flyer in action, standard green tip!
I concur
I was thinking about buying some myself
Thank you for the insight
@1:27
That is a lovely blade.
☕🐝🇺🇸
Bravo.thenks
You have some excellent natural windage indicators down range 👌🏽
Additional bearing surface of the longer projectile causing a need for more pressure to achieve the same velocity. Sorta the reason for driving bands and smooth bores in artillery. Speculation. Would need a strain gauge setup to see if the pressures really are that high.
that gel performance was pretty impressive, the initial fragmentation pretty drastic while still giving excellent penetration.
That was an excellent. Comparison. ,and a quality video
Interesting that today @inrangetv just released a video shooting both rounds through 20" bbl at an AR500 plate...it stopped the 855 round, but the 855A1 blew threw it like butter. Give it a watch.
Thanks for the review. Interesting results.
You forgot to take into account that the a1 bullet being copper and steel is longer than the 855 which uses lead. They are the same weight but the old m855 uses lead to get to 62 grains and is quite a bit shorter. The a1 bullet takes up more case capacity so it has to have higher pressures to get to the same velocity.
We have fancy mags that present the round at a different angle for feeding. Pmags do the same thing.
The increase in pressure on the m855-A1 is due to the longer projectile compared to the M855 or SS109 projectile. Copper is less dense than lead so you need more material to make 62 grains and that longer bullet goes further down into the case increasing pressure.
Yup, and a reduced case capacity, thus reducing the powder capacity.
I was looking down and had to make sure I didn't miss a CW Lemoine video @ 5:45
Very good video. Thank you for your honesty.
Love your videos, Tim - and I’m sorry you had to deal with the GAT dealership. I live in their area in the People’s Republic of Illinois. :(
Test it in shorter barrels (10,3-10,5) and you should be able to see greater velocity increase. The powder burns faster, so same numbers in bigger barrels. Also the chamber pressures increase from the size of the projectile, all other factors beeing equal.
I think you could have gotten a better result if you tested the rounds in 14.5 and 20" barrels instead of an 18" barrel. You could have had one hell of a test if you included M193, Mk262, and a bonded soft point just to see where 5.56 came from and where it's gone. The ballistic results you got with M855 also look like a bit of an outlier. The average neck is about 6", and has been seen to be as deep as 12", which is where ice picking comes from. That's half the reason why A1 I'd constructed the way it was.
We really need to see what's happening at range where velocities are significantly lower, and from 14" gun.
My problems were at 150+ not at 5 yards and they haven't issued me an 18" gun.
People looking for a magic round, it doesn’t exist, however 77 grain TMK is close.
They could redesign the bolt with thicker keys and reinforce the feed ramps with steel. Could be the cheapest solution for now. Idk what they could do to enhance barrel life.
I would definitely like to see both those cartridges tested for barrier penetration. Possibly several different kinds, mild steel, concrete, wood ect.
You really should've done this video with a 14.5" barrel, that is what the military is using it in after all. The numbers you obtained in the test are essentially meaningless without using the platform the rounds were designed for.
I almost exclusively use Federal/Winchester M855 ball because it's the same round i used my entire enlistment, and i know what to expect with it.
That being said, i read about M855A1 in American Rifleman shortly after I got out, and it sounded phenomenal and clearly performs great. I've never run it, though, and likely never will at this rate.
As far as terminal ballistics, I'd love to see how both of these rounds stack up against something like Black Hills premium 62 gr defense ammo!
I always had the thought that this ammo is like the medival times. Inventing better armor and then it turning inventing better weapons and then better armor, to the point the knights wore full suits of steel and then couldn't really move all that well.
This ammo has been around so long, that although chest plates will stop them 100% the time, the concussive force still knocks you out real good.
Inrange just dropped a video comparing M855 vs M855A1 from a WWSD with a 20" barrel against an AR 500 plate armour. The M855A1 went completely through the plate, the M855 scuffed the bedliner cover with no penetration of the plate.
M855A1 pits target steel at 100M from a 16” barrel.
Thank you for this comparison, I was considering buying some A1 but the cost is insane so based on this I will not move in that direction. I been buying the 77 grain OTM from palmetto state for defensive ammo at $10.99 a box.
So the older lot M855A1 that they first issued out definitely was hot stuff.. I shot some out of a issued M16A2.. alot of troops including myself saw alot more failure to feed and the dreaded triple feed. The recoil definitely was substantial.. the stuff thats been more recently produced has been consistent and reliable on both m16/M4 platform