US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5

[LR1955]

You're close, but not quite right. Environmental regulations seeking to eliminate lead pollution on US training ranges did indeed mandate the change to lead-free ball ammo.

The Army leadership then figured if they had to go lead-free, they would take the opportunity to simultaneously design the new bullet to have improved terminal performance.

Seems like a win-win to me. Environmentalists get a win in their efforts to save the planet, and soldiers win by getting a more effective bullet. I don't see a reason to complain.

Stan:

Makes sense to me. We got a better bullet out of it so how come everyone is complaining?

LR55

[stanc]

It depends on how political the Joint Chief of Staff has become. Under Obama the military took on all kinds of social experimental changes that was not conducive to a strong military or keeping the nation safe. There were many who were replaced by a more progressive thinking leadership to advance this agenda.

Social experimental changes in the military are not unique to Obama, nor did they begin with him. Following WWII, a "more progressive thinking leadership" undertook to integrate negro soldiers throughout the Army, instead of keeping them in segregated units as they had previously been. No doubt at the time there were a whole lot of white soldiers complaining about such a politically correct action being imposed.

I would love to see the cost difference between our M-855A1 round compared to the Russians 5.45X39 equivalent.

AFAIK, the Russians don't actually have an equivalent 5.45x39 bullet.

For cost comparison, the nearest equivalent is probably the 9x39 SPP.

[montana]

Stan:

Makes sense to me. We got a better bullet out of it so how come everyone is complaining?

LR55

So the rumors that the new M855A1 is near proof load in pressure, cutting the service life of our weapon plat forms in half is false? The rumor that it violates our agreement with NATO since the new mags and pressures are not NATO compatible and other members refuse to use it in their weapon plat forms is also false?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMCSZEw_dZc

[stanc]

So the rumors that the new M855A1 is near proof load in pressure, cutting the service life of our weapon plat forms in half is false? The rumor that it violates our agreement with NATO since the new mags and pressures are not NATO compatible and other members refuse to use it in their weapon plat forms is also false?

Those are different subjects than what has been under discussion: Lead-core vs lead-free bullet effectiveness.

[LR1955]

So the rumors that the new M855A1 is near proof load in pressure, cutting the service life of our weapon plat forms in half is false? The rumor that it violates our agreement with NATO since the new mags and pressures are not NATO compatible and other members refuse to use it in their weapon plat forms is also false?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMCSZEw_dZc

So, I should believe rumors are true?

How about a DoD report?

LR55

[montana]

So, I should believe rumors are true?

How about a DoD report?

LR55

I'm not trying to argue, just looking for the truth. Chris Bartocci has a life time in the firearm industry having worked for Colt. He is the author of The Black Rifle 2. I don't tend to dismiss his vast knowledge on M-16 platform. It just seems were getting conflicting reports. I remember when the M855 round came out and it was considered the best thing since sliced bread by the DoD. It didn't perform very well in real world engagements, hence the M-855A1 .

[montana]

Those are different subjects than what has been under discussion: Lead-core vs lead-free bullet effectiveness.

Yes and I was only trying to see if the M855A1 is as good as some reported it was. The cost and actual effectiveness per round is what is the subject if I'm not mistaken. I'm getting conflicting reports on the M-855A1 round and just wanted to discus it, not get into an argument.

[LRRPF52]

Here's a good article on M855A1 performance, with video: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/...real-deal/

Short story: It smokes AR680 Level III + armor plates, smokes the heavier CMU blocks, and has much better terminal performance with both fragmentation and penetration compared to M855 62gr with the concealed penetrator. It out-performs M80 147gr 7.62x51 NATO with ease when looking at barrier defeat of both armor steel, wonder blocks, and has better wound inflicting characteristics as well. It laid the foundation for the new M80A1 7.62 NATO, which mimics the M855A1 construction, but with a much poorer BC than 147gr M80 FMJBT, attempting to compensate for this poor BC with much higher muzzle velocity.

There was a detailed discussion I recall where the propellant has been re-engineered to reduce chamber pressure without sacrificing too much performance.



[video=youtube;d8IvDPuVuho]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8IvDPuVuho[/video]

[video=youtube;tMSNc3lZsYE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMSNc3lZsYE[/video]

[video=youtube;qCgyZGhZ2f8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCgyZGhZ2f8[/video]

[montana]

I have seen some of these test and it looks like a winner but the conflicting reports have continued. I have not heard about the up-graded powder reducing the pressures. Excellent, thank you!

[LRRPF52]

It started out as a combination of addressing excessive yaw in flight from tungsten core projectiles they experimented with, and an environmentally-friendly effort to appease increasing pressure from that crowd, since several Army training areas were being threatened with closure by States (MA) that had excessively restrictive policies that the Federal government would have to abide by. This program entered Phase II after the tungsten core key-holing issues, as well as the realization that tungsten might even be worse than lead. All the lead agencies met for Phase II to address how they would move forward with addressing these challenges with 5.56 NATO ammunition.

Project Manager for Maneuver Ammunition Systems (PM-MAS), the Armaments Research, Development, and Engineering Center (ARDEC), the Army Research Lab (ARL), the US Army Infantry Center (USAIC), the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM), and contractors supporting ammunition design and production like Alliant Tech Systems (ATK) and General Dynamics – St. Mark’s Powder (GD-SMP). (The Marine Corps Combat Development Command was also a participant in this effort, though they were not present at the initial meeting.)

The program leads and contractors were laying out the scope of the effort when the Infantry Center rep spoke up, and said, basically: “Look, we’re in the middle of a war. No one gives a shit about being environmentally friendly right now. Can’t you give us something better, instead?” The SOCOM rep echoed the same sentiment.

Excerpt From: Glenn Dean. “In Search of Lethality: Green Ammo and the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round.” iBooks.

From this impetus was M855A1 born.

[stanc]

Stan:

Makes sense to me. We got a better bullet out of it so how come everyone is complaining?

Gene, I don't know. I find it quite illogical to complain about adopting a new bullet that outperforms the old one.

The only reason I can think of which makes any sense is that it's an emotional reaction to being forced to change.

I mean, a lot of Horde members actually choose to use lead-free bullets for hunting, and one even developed his own!

(Which, rather ironically, looks exactly like an EPR bullet. )



http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...-90-Bullet

[LRRPF52]

There was a bit of understandable pushback when it was first an environmental priority, versus combat focus and soldier priority. If you read my post above, you see that they dealt with that PDQ.

The resulting projectile is a major step up in performance over M855 and M80. Biggest challenge they encountered was how the new exposed steel penetrators damage the inside of magazine bodies, as well as the M4 and SAW feed ramp(s).

With the Magpul M3, the feed lip angle orients the projectile so that it feeds more in alignment with the chamber, without impacting the upper receiver. This is one of the main problems they had with M855A1 from the start, and why they made the EPM as well for the Army.

[BluntForceTrauma]

My point is I'm perfectly willing to grant M855A1 is a "better" bullet, but at what price per unit compared to an analog with a lead core instead of copper under the steel tip.

My argument is simple to address. DOD analysts can say: 1) Sure, it costs more, but this is 'merica and we can afford it, so we don't care. Or, 2) copper is not a strategic resource that we need to conserve in a very large war. Or, 3) using lead in the core is orders of magnitude less "effective" than the same in copper.

Those are what I consider valid "technical" reasons, not politically driven fake reasons — as Trump would say .

[JASmith]

Stan:

Makes sense to me. We got a better bullet out of it so how come everyone is complaining?

LR55

One advantage is that reasonably posed complaints lead to balanced debate that we all learn from.

We all bristle when "feel good" legislation forces us to abandon long standing methods and materials. Nonetheless, the occasional silver lining pops up.

For example, I submit that while, several thousand years of use from plumbing to wine storage have shown that lead toxicity is not particularly serious, there is enough for legislators to use that as a ploy to ban lead in hunting ammunition. The result is that the then nascent lead-free bullet making community blossomed with a large variety of hunting bullets, almost all of which are superior game harvesters on a weight for weight basis than lead core bullets.

Yes, to my knowledge so far, none of the lead-free alternatives are less expensive than a Cor-Lokt, Power Point, or any of the other modest priced lead core hunting bullets. Some of them, however, are less expensive than their equivalent premium lead core hunting bullets.

So, while I completely concur with BFT's annoyance with the apparent mandate to avoid lead, there are advantages.

Further, several of the cross section photos of Russian bullets, in particular, show small amounts of lead used as a filler. There is a cost-savings to be gained from using a soft material to fill the space between a steel core and a soft iron or copper jacket.

Thus lead continues to have a place in military applications independent of civilian constraints.

[stanc]

My point is I'm perfectly willing to grant M855A1 is a "better" bullet, but at what price per unit compared to an analog with a lead core instead of copper under the steel tip.

For a close approximation:

copper @ $2.50 / lb
lead @ $1.00 / lb
M855A1 slug @ 30 gr

Price difference per bullet:

[stanc]

...several of the cross section photos of Russian bullets, in particular, show small amounts of lead used as a filler. There is a cost-savings to be gained from using a soft material to fill the space between a steel core and a soft iron or copper jacket.

Thus lead continues to have a place in military applications independent of civilian constraints.

The Russian and Chinese bullets are 1940s technology. Lead is not needed in modern steel-core bullet designs like the Swedish 5.56mm.

[stanc]

My argument is simple to address. DOD analysts can say:

1) Sure, it costs more, but this is 'merica and we can afford it, so we don't care.

Uh, that is exactly what they did say.

Or, 2) copper is not a strategic resource that we need to conserve in a very large war.

The US doesn't do large wars anymore. We only attack small countries that we think can't hurt us.

Or, 3) using lead in the core is orders of magnitude less "effective" than the same in copper.

Heh, heh. No practical core material is going to be "orders of magnitude" less effective than any other.

Those are what I consider valid "technical" reasons...

Since reason #1 has been answered, does that mean you'll stop objecting to EPR bullets? You may as well accept it and plan for it, because neither you nor anyone else here has the power to change it.

I realize that you want the Army to go back to using lead-core bullets so that a 123gr bullet for 6.5 Grendel will be feasible, but that ain't likely to happen. Besides, didn't even Bill Alexander say that 100-110 grains is the optimum weight range for a 6.5 Grendel military bullet?

[montana]

For a close approximation:

copper @ $2.50 / lb
lead @ $1.00 / lb
M855A1 slug @ 30 gr

Price difference per bullet:

Do you have the actual cost per bullet? It looks like an expensive bullet to make but I could be wrong. I have never seen any actual costs for comparison. If memory serves me correctly, we don't even have any lead mines open in the US anymore and must depend upon imports.

[stanc]

Do you have the actual cost per bullet? It looks like an expensive bullet to make but I could be wrong.

I have not seen any actual cost data. Only thing I found in a brief search is wiki says M855A1 is 5 cents more than M855.

[stanc]

Happened to come across an interesting photo. Apparently the developers of the EPR bullet experimented with a one-piece steel core. Made for a very long bullet. Center, below.