03-14-2011, 03:21 AM
Joe,
The M855A1 bullet is designed to be a LF version of the original bullet. It is not designed to be an enhanced bullet, other than being lead free. Because of this, it will suffer from all of the issues that the M855 bullet does, plus the added cost stemming from increased production costs.
Also, they have had to get pressure waivers because it is a single source special power and a single source primer. Great, added cost with no increased effectiveness. It is not as accurate as std. M855, but still within spec...barely.
Big Army is still thinking that we are going to be fighting in the Fulda Gap and having to shoot hordes of Ivan Ivanovic's who wear soft body armor and have to shoot at steel helmets at 1/2 mile.
Using Ballistic Gel at 50m, M-855 ammo, when fired from M-4's, has a neck length of 6"+. Not very impressive, which only gives people more ammunition to dislike the 5.56 round, when it is the bullet more than anything else.
I too do not think that you can maintain QC on what is essentially match bullets by the tens of millions, at least not at a price that the DoD is willing to pay.
20" Barrels are going to go the way of $0.10 Beer and $0.25 Gas. 12.5" to 16" barrels are going to be the norm. Here, you would see a 100-110 grain bullet with an initial MV of 2,450 to 2,600 fps.
Personally, I think that the 5.56 is TOO much of a compromise, but we have been using it for over 45 years and the people I shot with it, stayed shot.
The somewhat extended ranges that we are seeing in Afghanistan only highlight what has been known since the First World War. At ranges 400m +, individual soldiers shooting at point targets is useless, essentially. This is the purview of the Designated Marksman or Machine Gunner. Soldiers do not estimate range very well, nor do they take wind into account, so without training it would not matter if they had a round that was more effective, because they would still miss.
The M855A1 bullet is designed to be a LF version of the original bullet. It is not designed to be an enhanced bullet, other than being lead free. Because of this, it will suffer from all of the issues that the M855 bullet does, plus the added cost stemming from increased production costs.
Also, they have had to get pressure waivers because it is a single source special power and a single source primer. Great, added cost with no increased effectiveness. It is not as accurate as std. M855, but still within spec...barely.
Big Army is still thinking that we are going to be fighting in the Fulda Gap and having to shoot hordes of Ivan Ivanovic's who wear soft body armor and have to shoot at steel helmets at 1/2 mile.
Using Ballistic Gel at 50m, M-855 ammo, when fired from M-4's, has a neck length of 6"+. Not very impressive, which only gives people more ammunition to dislike the 5.56 round, when it is the bullet more than anything else.
I too do not think that you can maintain QC on what is essentially match bullets by the tens of millions, at least not at a price that the DoD is willing to pay.
20" Barrels are going to go the way of $0.10 Beer and $0.25 Gas. 12.5" to 16" barrels are going to be the norm. Here, you would see a 100-110 grain bullet with an initial MV of 2,450 to 2,600 fps.
Personally, I think that the 5.56 is TOO much of a compromise, but we have been using it for over 45 years and the people I shot with it, stayed shot.
The somewhat extended ranges that we are seeing in Afghanistan only highlight what has been known since the First World War. At ranges 400m +, individual soldiers shooting at point targets is useless, essentially. This is the purview of the Designated Marksman or Machine Gunner. Soldiers do not estimate range very well, nor do they take wind into account, so without training it would not matter if they had a round that was more effective, because they would still miss.