On Afghan Walls: He’s not joking. They might be made with a mixture of portland cement and goat dung, but unless they’re hit right next to a corner, or at the top edge they’ll shrug off a shot from an AT4 or RPG-7, no problem. And at the same time they’re soft enough that you can walk up and pull chunks out with your hand. Weird tech, but very tough.
When 10th mountain made the switch, my groups were cut, literally in half as far as size. We also saw a significant increase in the marksmanship scores during rifle qualifications across the board. I am a huge fan of the new “green “round.
I have also seen some ballistics gel tests on yt that show it has far far better terminal performance in soft targets compared to M855. Regular green tip will sometimes zip through soft targets without tumbling or really dumping any energy, or will tumble really deep like 7-8 inches in at which point it would already be most if not all the way trough a body. So its a bit more accurate and better terminal performance on soft and hard targets. Seems like a good improvement to me.
Biden's gift to the Taliban Billions worth of our Taxes & weapons. & The reason they didn't develop a better Round is because they want to stretch War out it makes the Elites more money
@@Nick-sx6jmthat performance depends almost entirely on the weapon used and the range to the target. The AR-15 platform was designed for a 55gr bullet and a 1:9 twist out of a 20” barrel. By the time you shoot a 62gr bullet out of a 14.5” barrel with a 1:7 twist you lose so much velocity the bullet won’t tumble on impact beyond about 100m. That’s fine for a carbine. It’s not for a battle rifle. That’s why the Marine Corps adopted the M16A4 with a 20” barrel.
Where M855A1 shines is that it still fragments at much lower velocities, like close to 1600FPS. This is around the 600 yard mark for 12.5" to 14.5" barreled rifles. Old M855 minimum fragmenting velocities vary between 2700 to 2500 FPS, which out of an M4 doesnt get you very far.
@ChadTheAfricanBullfrog I don't think the OP even made mention of seeing the effects of A1 against a enemy. It's gel results still give an indication of it's potential performance in living tissue and M855A1 has been proven by many with public gel tests to be superior to M855..
@ChadTheAfricanBullfrog Martin Fackler, who popularized the gel test, was a field surgeon in Vietnam and likely had more experience with 5.56 wounds than anyone else. Gel isn’t something made by guys in lab coats that have never fired a gun before, it’s something made by a combat surgeon who had extensive experience documenting GSWs. This guy wasn’t very specific at all as to whether the terminal performance was better or worse, and said the information was secondhand anyway. M855 and M193 performance is notoriously inconsistent, and if we just listened to one person and jettisoned gel tests we would either come to the conclusion that M193 is amazing or terrible, when the reality is that it can be either one, depending on the AOA from fleet yaw.
Buh…but my gel test showed it would work, buh… Ballistic gel is nothing but a consistent test medium from which to compare various projectiles, nothing more, nothing less. It literally is for lab use *only*. There’s a reason why an ammo maker will spend years developing a bullet in the *lab* and then take it to Texas or someplace similar to shoot living animals. Then they find that it really doesn’t work as advertised. Why? Because even when you add test barriers in front or inside the gel they aren’t consistent. There’s a huge difference between live bone and dead bone, so adding a pig scapula inside the block isn’t accurate either.
@@soonerfrac4611 yeah none of that is accurate. Martin Fackler initially took wound profiles from his experience as a field surgeon in Vietnam. When he later headed the Wound Ballistics Laboratory, they initially used pigs. First anesthetized, then later dispatched and used before rigor mortis set in. He then popularized the use of properly calibrated 10% 250A porcine gelatin not because it was simply consistent, but because it correlated closely with the average wound found in pig and human tissue. This was further demonstrated by Gene Wolberg’s study “Performance of the Winchester 9mm 147 Grain Jacketed Hollow Point Bullet in Human Tissue and Tissue Simulant” published in the IWBA’s Wound Ballistics Review (Winter 1991, Volume 1, Number 1, Page 10).
I used to work in bullet manufacturing for a specialty bullet company. We had several .mil type contracts for our bullets, including for Mk262 type 77gr OTM’s. I probably made millions of them. Mk262 is actually significantly cheaper to manufacture. It takes 1/3 of the steps to make and maybe 1/5 the amount of man hours to make compared to a polymer tip hunting bullet. The real advantage of the 77gr OTM is that it’s easy to keep it consistent in the manufacturing process. Weights stayed spot on to two tenths of a grain, and OAL stayed right around an inch. Because of the simplicity of the design, the bullet was easy to produce in great quantity with good quality.
Great info! I don't claim to be a bullet expert by no means. I consider myself just an end user, so any details on actual bullet design and production is cool
@@bluntsmoke1872 The one place that it does get beat in my opinion is with bonded soft points. They are less velocity and barrier sensitive. But I would have no qualms about using either one they're both fantastic
I work for a body armor company, and tests M855A1 almost weekly. To give you an idea of my familiarity with this round, the thumbnail of this video (at the time of this comments posting) is actually showing M80A1 loaded in a magazine, the 7.62x51 version of this round. I have to say M855A1 (per the BATFE) IS considered an actual AP round while M855 is considered EP or MSC. To note, anything that punches through level III steel can be considered "AP", but for the sake of this conversation, Ill keep that to projectiles with a hardened steel insert that can punch through level III steel. I've seen M855A1 out of a 20" barrel punch through some RF2 (III+) plates with relative consistency while M855/M193 does not (again take note; RF2, NOT RF1, or NIJ level III, as M855 out of a 20" will punch through RF1/ NIJ III). There is an enhanced design of this projectile in the form of a kinetic "bump" that is similar to a tank sabot. The rear end of the projectile acts like a hammer while the hardened steel insert punches through a surface making sure there is a little extra umph when it gets through a hard surface like steel. I don't have any data the army has, nor any anti-personal stats of the round that you may have but don't want people to walk away from this video thinking M855A1 is over hyped. Its not. IF I had to cite my personal experience with this round, it's that its far more effective than standard MSC/ EP rounds (SS109 and M855), but not as effective as Teflon or tungsten carbide rounds. What's relevant to this conversation however is projectile availability. While Black tip SS190 (not to be confused with SS109) 5.56 is all but unobtanium, M855A1 falls off the back of the supply truck pretty often. No, I'm not at liberty to say what company I work for and what plates are defeated, but a simple search online will show this. Good info in this video from the perspective of a retired SF operator, but not exactly inline with my personal testing and others who have posted results online. Another (un)fun-fact about A1 is that you have to be careful of the steel penetrator that protrudes out of the front of the projectile. Because its not like normal M855, the exposed penetrator is susceptible to rust from (oxidization) sweat and water and if you keep rounds loaded in mags in humid environments for long periods of time, its likely you could end up with rust deformation and pitting of the projectile that could case an ogive flight path, deteriorating accuracy.
Good information I mentioned it in a few responses.. I'm not really a bullet expert I'm an end user and yes the video is going off of my view of downrange information and not scientific testing.
What a bullet can and can't penetrate on a federasl level doesn't denote whether it's Armor Piercing or not. It's solely based on 1> That it can be used in a pistol (5.56 can), and it's 2 > construction. There's varying gray areas on what the ATF has considered the "core" of the bullet. One could argue that the M855A1's core is copper, and the tip is the penetrator, but the ATF does what it wants. Do you have any data on what period of time is needed to cause rusting and degradation of the exposed steel? All production M855A1 has a rust inhibitor coating on it..
@@spraynpray M193 does not go through level III like butter. Velocity is relevant with M193. M193 out of a 16" or less barrel will not pass through level III. M193 out of an barrel length greater than 16" will pass through with increasing frequency as the barrel length is increased. Reread what I said: "To note, anything that punches through level III steel can be considered "AP", but for the sake of this conversation, Ill keep that to projectiles with a hardened steel insert that can punch through level III steel." In other words, yes the rounds you cited could be interpreted as Armor Piercing, but only in the sense that they pierce armor (as you noted), not in the sense that they are designed to and left the factory with the intention of defeating armor.
When I worked at the Pentagon, HQDA spent $1.4 million to decorate about 100 feet of hallway outside a general’s office. $100 million is a steal for something actually useful.
@ Modern Tactical Shooting I find it very ironic that your Bravos had to wheel and deal just to get proper ammo and such. As MP on our SRT (early ‘02 time frame) we had to consistently beg borrower and tactically acquire just about everything. Ammo, range time, smoke grenades, even M4’s because our parent unit didn’t have any assigned to us so we took over spare M4’s from the local CID & RCF. We would run M9 ranges for artillery officers and SNCO’s just to get extra training time, or borrow tools and gear. We had zero up armored vehicles at that time also.
@@soonerfrac4611 SF still Army and we had our own funding problems too. Part what makes a 18B or Cs excel is their ability to wheel and deal to get stuff or get something done.
I don’t know if they are still loading it as hot as the original spec, but that stuff beat our M4s to death. My unit did a series of ranges in Alaska in 2017 and it took almost 10% of our rifles out of the fight over two weeks. We had so many broken bolt lugs, it was incredible. It made me want to buy an extra bolt and keep it with me.
I carried a spare bolt in my pack on mission, after I broke a bolt on the range in Afghanistan. I figured sure.... I put a new bolt in and doubt it would fail. But I figured all the team's carbines had close to the same high round counts, so just in case a teammates bolt broke on mission, I had one to offer.
You probably already had significant gas port erosion on your M4's before fielding M855a, and the new higher pressure round just exponentially accelerated the deterioration of your carbines.
@@ModernTacticalShooting It's good to keep stuff in stock because if there was ever a time were you need to start burning the tires in the street, the people you defend your community with might need it.
The original A1 load was about 10% hotter than M855 but later development found a powder charge that would get the same velocity results with only a 5% increase in pressure. That's what was briefed at the Wilson match a few years ago.
As the state marksmanship coordinator for the national guard in my state we did some work with these rounds on a known distance range. Using our All Guard shooters (and other team shooters but I was mostly paying attention to our All Guard members) we saw a noticable improvement in groups fired at 300 yards, the only yard line we fired both rounds. If you discount the worst round of either 855 or 855A1 5 round groups the A1 was clearly superior. It was about 1 MOA better. Including the fliers it was still almost a half minute tighter over the 5 groups of 5 rounds. I think including the .8 MOA group of the M855, that you admitted was an aberration, skews your results. As for lethality it's my understanding that the fragmentation threshold for M855 is about 2600fps but that for the A1 it's about 1900fps. I can't confirm that from experience but maybe one day I'll get some test media and try it out. As for the mags, we got them in bulk in the guard about a year and a half ago. Can't say I've seen much of a difference in mags, assuming they are not damaged. Damaged mags are shit no matter the specifics. I'll see if I can find the notes from our informal tests on the KD range as my comments are from memory. I can say with confidence that we saw a noticable improvement in accuracy.
Sounds very similar to our state's experience. We used up the last of our green tip stuff in 2020 and saw an increase in points during TAG rounds in both 2021 and 2022; as an "and but" our over all numbers for competition was less in 21 and 22, but our range of experience was more diverse and should have had a greater variance. I can't speak too personally on the performance as I consider myself a horrible marksman with horrible eyes who compensates by a lot of range time; but the A1 rounds have only seem to perform on par or better with guys using the M4 rifles on red dots. The guys with that and ACOG's have seen an average increase, as well as the A2's and A4's (M16) both iron sight and ACOG.
This pretty much matches the test the AF tests from '10 comparing 855, 855A1, and Mk318. Ultimately our field tests showed Mk318 slightly more accurate (about .06 mil), but not enough to allow hits that 855A1 would not allow. Green tip M855 was the least accurate by about .2 mil. The most significant difference was in wounding. Inside 50-75 meters M855A1 was only slightly better than M855. Past that distance, the M855A1 was CLEARLY superior to legacy M855 and Mk262. Our testing was only out to 613M. On a side note, wounding for the Mk318 was characterized as "acceptable" at short to medium ranges, but far inferior to the M855A1 at all tested ranges.
@@anthonybarker9123 in my initial read my brain read MOA where you wrote Mil. For a moment I thought your numbers seemed wrong to me. I quickly realized you were using mil. I'm old and learned moa, not mil. I've become a fan of the A1 and wish we could get it for my civilian job. Sadly we are using M855 out of our 11.5 inch guns.
@@anthonybarker9123At 600 Meters what are the MOA wind constants for each cartridge? I get an 8.5 constant from Mk262 which means I can counter uncertain wind better than other rounds.
M855A1 might see a longer service life in Big Army far beyond the adoption of 6.8mm because my gut feeling is that the higher-ups will hopefully understand (or maybe planned all along???) that NGSW is better suited to replace the .308 lineup and the 5.56mm SAW rather than the 5.56mm carbine. Edit: If I remember correctly, Jeff covered this in the Practical Accuracy NGSW vid (link's in the description).
Sounds like they're going to have to improve the bolts and barrel extensions on older M-4s, and maybe go to a stainless hybrid case for M-855a1. Or a1(b) or whatever you'd like to call it.
@@dangvorbei5304 LMT Enhanced Bolt could probably fix all of those problems. I don't know enough about metallurgy to say if you would need a beefed-up barrel extension as well, but if you are breaking those I think you have bigger problems.
@@Laotzu.Goldbug That's an awesome idea, and there's bound to be a way to handle the barrel extensions as well. SIG isn't about to share their secrets, but as LMT demonstrated, they aren't the only game in town. Next, to do something about this BS 5moa rebuild standard.
That was very informative. Those photos from your deployments are awesome. I'd have to agree with you. 1MOA is the gold standard for match grade accuracy. Great video.
Great video. In the Army Infantry. We were issued tan follower mags when i got in in 2012 and up till 2016, then they started issuing everyone Gen 3 PMAGs
@@ModernTacticalShooting my pleasure, it was a blight when they rolled into the training fold. It pushed teams to shoot mk262 for basically 8 ish months before the powers that be deemed it cost ineffective. From a maintainer standpoint we had issues in a few arenas from bolts, gas rings and barrel wear and tear.
@@ModernTacticalShooting luckier than our guys, granted at the time all this was going down at 1sfg I was at the GSB as a civi augmentee, but I can say one thing that made a bit of difference was the roll out of the URGI with its mid length gas system. That little extra dwell time cut back on bolt lugs shearing thankfully
I bought a can of Federal M193 5.56mm stripper clips in 2018 or 2019. A few months ago I got to that can, and I was at the range loading mags when I saw a single M855A1 round on one of the stripper clips. That round is on my wall shelf now lol.
Marine here, were issued mk262 when I was in Afghan, saw the aftermath of a combatant’s leg afterward and jeez, his whole calf was gone. Didn’t see that type of flesh damage with the army’s m855A1 in my experience
Yeah the Mk262 is a soft bullet and when it hits bone, it fragments. Much better external ballistics. When I was in Afghan, we had the M855, M855A1, the Mk-318 mod 0 and the Mk262. We played around with it at the range at Leatherneck when I got there and told the ammo tech that I’d rather have the Mk-318 mod 0 and the Mk-262. The new Mk-318 mod 1 has a nickel jacket. I got a friend that’s still active at Camp Pendleton. I retired in 2015. Semper
I suspect A long winded way to say NO! Guns breaking even faster (via glorified "Proof Loadings") in A military that already poorly services and maintains weapons and keeps them in service too long ............... VERY BAD IDEA! The shorter barrel fetish should necessitate A change of caliber.
Great work again Jeff. A complete work up on the SOST MOD1 would be greatly appreciated. I've been amazed with this round for a while now. I was lucky to get some of this ammo before the price went crazy and availability dried up. Be safe out there
Thanks Jeff - that was really interesting. When I was in USMC ITR in 1970 we had those aluminum 20 round magazines and they were complete pieces of crap. They weren't all the same size - so the M-16A1's we had had an adjustment to the magazine latch. Once I was issued two magazines for training. The first was too fat and would not go in the weapon - so I had to adjust the magazine catch to fit it in. When I fired that magazine off - I put the next magazine in - and it was a skinny one - so the bolt going home drove the magazine right out of the weapon and into the dirt ... I was not happy but at least that happened in training. I never saw combat. My contribution to the Vietnam War was being a sentry in California. Of course, the Army does not have a good history on things like ammunition. The ammunition Custer's troops had did not have brass casings - they were copper. Which had been bought because it was cheaper. The end result of that was that if you fired the weapon to fast the weapon would heat up and the copper would swell tight against the chamber. The extractor would tear off the base of the round - instead of extracting it - leaving a copper coated chamber that you could not fit another round into. Troopers had to take the points of their knives and try to pry the copper out of their chambers in order to load another round. When the Army became aware of the problem - they stopped buying the copper cased rounds - but - they issued all the ones they'd paid for ... .
Back in the day for me (early 90s) when we had the black follower 30 rounder, similar problems. I would take a dozen mags to the range, always a couple that did not work, I would mark those that did and stick to them only. green follower mags came out around 1998, they are still them best GI mag I think.
@@ModernTacticalShooting Yeah. That was smart. We had to turn ours in when they said to so we just had whatever they gave us. One day after training - it was "Turn all your magazines in!" Then "Don't turn your magazines in!" Then "Turn all your magazines in! Then "Don't turn your magazines in!" So - after the last one - I went to the guy I'd turned my magazines in to and he didn't have any more ... So - for the next little while, I had a one round M-16. I'd get the bolt back and stick a round into the chamber through ... I believe ... the magazine well ... though it could have been the ejection port ... I don't remember. We were just firing blanks, chasing each other around the hills on Camp Pendleton. *_Bang!_* *_Bang!_* _"You're dead!"_ _"No I'm not! I shot you first!"_ Such an "improvement" over when I was 11 and chasing my friends through the woods around the MOQ's on Camp Lejeune ... Never had problems like that with the Steel (?) Magazines for my M-14's. We spent like 3 weeks (?) at Edson Range and I never had a feed problem with an M-14. When I was a sentry and we had an alert ( *_Bong! Bong! Bong! Bong!_* ) - you'd grab your M-14 out of your wall locker, pull on your pants and sprint down to the Guard Office where they handed out magazines (two iirc) to the guys piling into the backs of pick up trucks to respond to the alert. Then _Off we'd go ..._ We'd turn those back in when we came back from the alert. So we never got to keep any magazines with our weapons. I'm pretty sure they didn't want us to have loaded weapons in the barracks. The only time I ever had ammunition for a weapon - was when I was ON post. We had 1911A1's for Gate Posts and Roving Patrols - but those weapons (with two magazines ea. and only had 5 rounds ea. to keep the springs from becoming depressed) stayed on post with the relief. Same with the M-14 magazines on Walking Posts and Watch Towers. Never had a feed problem with a 1911 either ... [shrug] I don't think I ever knew a Marine (and I served with a LOT of Combat Veterans) who didn't love the M-14 and hate the M-16. I do not envy you guys that weapon or it's descendants. Not one damn bit. .
We hit a qulat wall with an AT-4 and it didn't even make a big enough hole to fit through. People hear "mud hut" and they think something made of paper.
If M855A1 isn't such a big improvement on M855, why is it so hard for civilians to get their hands on M855A1? The exclusivity makes it seem like it's some miracle cartridge that the government wants to keep out of civvie hands.
Tactical Hive tested M193 out of 14" ,16" , 20" barrel's using 2" reems of paper, twelve inches in front of a steel target from ten yrs out. The 14" went through 4 reems hitting the steel target staying intact. The 16" went through 3.5 reems fragmenting into small pieces. The 20" went through 3 reems totally fragmentation turning into dust) . As Coach said " The hundred pound heads" knew what they were doing with maximum velocity in the shortest barrel too achieve the greatest damage without over penatration, the 16" barrel was the ticket=(The Vietnam era) Later on, Urban combat required a shorter 14" barrel fighting in buildings where walls were much thicker able to stop rounds passing through , the 14 inch became the new fighting weapon for close quarters combat= CQB.(Afghanistan era)
That Mark 262 performs very well out of my suppressed Centurion cold hammer forged CL'd barrel. I'm glad I stocked up on that stuff. 855A1 terminal performance seems to do prett well. Out of 14.5 barrels it I've seen it fragment in gel.
One of the biggest issues (speaking as a current active duty armorer) is chamber and throat erosion, especially in the 249. If a 249 goes to the range, one of the barrels will almost certainly be deadlined because of the gouges that M855A1/M856A1 (tungsten tracer)
This channel is so good...how good ? I actually watch through the advertisements to watch it...that's how good. Great analysis without all the BS....straight dope.
One of the most experienced channel's I've found. Appreciate your opinions and experience. Now if only the government would take less than a decade to make changes and adjust fire based on guys like your feedback we'd be sittin pretty. Also, probably need a new Commander in Chief.
Very good amount if info packed into this video. Having not worn a uniform since 1990 and only having to deal with AR platforms from the civilian LE point of view since, I didn’t t even know about the 855A1 until may 2019 after reading something about the round. I’ve bought green tip but found that after shooting mostly 1-9 barrels since 2004, the 55 grain variants seemed to have sufficient accuracy potential. I’ve gotten as tight as .6 MOA with V-Max 55 grain and some Israeli surplus M193 I bought in 1992-93 was capable of knocking over 2x4 inch prairie dog silhouettes at 500M after aging gracefully in a can for 28 years. That out of a 14.5 P&N 1-9 barrel. I have never shot any of the MK262 but had understood that in addition to accuracy, it was found to have ballistic benefits in shorter barreled platforms. I also have a 16 inch 1-7 that I’ve used to get some fairly decent slightly over MOA groups with some 75 grain commercial, but really didn’t have enough ammo to say it should be my go to. My question is - with the Mk262 having superior accuracy benefits and a solid track record, why didn’t the Army simply adopt it in place of blowing money on development of the M855A1? (I know…. I know…..)
Without being military (outside of ROTC, was RE4 due to an eye injury) I can say based on the ballistic data and combat reports plus personal testimonies from soldiers I have talked to that YES it was worth the 100 Million Dollar Switch. M855A1 EPR is more than just a new 5.56 and 7.62 round (M80A1 EPR is the 7.62 NATO version)... this new round is THE GENERAL PURPOSE design for the foreseeable future. It improved accuracy, GREATLY improved barrier defeating performance, and also better armor penetration even though its not an AP round, the design just makes it better at it, and finally its TERMINAL performance is superb with how it shreds the jacket and creates multiple permanent wound cavities in the target, all while adhering to the Hague Convention standards that we never ratified in the first place.
Just one small point I would like to make is that the new 6.8x51 cartridge for the NGSW is not “6.8 ARC”. It’s more commonly known as “.277 Fury”. Awesome video on a round unknown to a lot of shooters.
@@Laotzu.Goldbug Yes, that’s what ARC stands for in the above comment. If you google “6.8 ARC” nothing pops up for it. It is all 6.8 SPC and 6mm ARC. Why? Because it is not called 6.8 ARC.
@@creekochee3592 that's what I thought. So oes it have an official DoD designation at this point? I know that ".277 Fury" is the commercial trademark that Sig is selling it under on the civilian market, but I don't think that the Army is going to be calling it that...
@@Laotzu.Goldbug It’s not what you thought because 6.8 ARC would be copyright infringement on Hornady… in my comment I was quoting the video, I thought you were asking if that’s what “ARC” meant in my comment. It is not called that. More than likely, it will be called 6.8x51 because the DoD doesn’t assign anything other than metric caliber measurement. Colloquially, by the people who will carry it, probably just 6.8 or 6.8 Fury.
I'm a year late to this one, but, from seeing our State's NG shooting team, and working the ranges with them, we definately saw tighter groups going from greentip to A1s. Some of these guys are National-level good shooters and I have seen/scored 5-shot groupings of sub-moa out to 400y. These are out of issued, but in great shape, M4a1s with 4x Elcans. As the EPR round starts to become affordable, and civilian use gets more widespread, be careful to use the 'improved' mag, or at least the new followers, that give the round a slight lift at the nose. It will help prevent the scouring effect on the feed ramps from that sharp point digging in. My personal 14.5" already shows a few scour marks, where the ramp meets the barrel, just from one old GI mag (tan follower) with 30 rds fired. Awesome round though...very flat shooting and fast.
@@StreetLight099 the "improved" is just a tan color metal gi mag with a no tilt follower that has a slight upward cant so the tip of round doesnt dig in as the round feeds. The tungsten will scour the feed with standard magpul or old GI.
Thanks for the first hand report on M855A1. We get so much political "Gas Lighting" from the military "Managers", that I don't have a lot of faith in what they have to say. I had heard that the Army had to reduce the chamber pressure of this round once it was issued. I know there is no way to measure that in the field, but have you heard that too? Regarding the 6.8x51 round, all the videos I see are guys shooting the low pressure "Practice Ammo" and not the full power 80,000 to 100,000 PSI "Combat Ammo". I imagine the reason for every rifle having a suppressor is the incredible report from such a high pressure round out of a 13" barrel. I was able to talk to the SIG development team and they weren't allowed to disclose any AP data, as the Army requested that they not discuss it. I did handle all the new weapons and the M5 is ridiculously long and heavy and for CQB, I would say it is less then ideal. Personally I think this rifle is going to be quietly dropped once it gets in the hands of the trigger pullers. The new 338 machine gun, which is lighter than the M240B and supposedly uses a shorter round than the 338 Lapua Mag, impressed me as the pressure was reasonable and it didn't require the new hybrid case. I could see this replacing the M240B in the Medium Machine Gun role. The 6.8x51 M250 is much lighter than the M249 and if chambered for the 7.62x51 round would be a great squad weapon that can use current ammo stocks and retain NATO compatibility, especially if the sound suppressor was optional. .
That "bad mag" issue where the bullet goes into the feed ramps, is actually an out-of-spec upper. The barrel breech extends beyond the receiver, making a shelf for the bullet tip to catch under.
I was a small arms repairman and m855a1 killed barrels very quickly making them lose putting small dents in the back end of the barrel. But most of all it destroyed feed paws on SAWs like nobodies business
Nice video bro . Love these types of videos . I'm a small Arms geek for sure . Yeah I'd say that's some pretty bad ass shooting to get those groups at distance with M855 or M855A1 . Then again Colt SOCOMs can be insanely accurate. I know the 4 or 5 SOCOMs I own are definitely some good shooting barrels for being C.L.. Hell I used to use my Colt SOCOM that I chopped to 12.5" for 2Gun Matches because it was the most accurate barrel I owned at the time . This 5+ years ago . I picked up 10 rounds of M855A1 couple years ago . I'll probably never shoot them because I was told it would blow up my Colt M4s lol. I got them to be cool . This was before CV and those suckers were still $3 a round lol.. I saw some where that Okay Ind / Surefeed is stopping production. Surefeeds and Pmags are literally all I use . Questions .. Didn't regular Army boycott Pmags in 2010ish time period . I remeber reading an article about it years ago online but never knew if it was actually true..
Yes, The Army didint allow Pmags to be sold on post I think for a short time, along with some other AR15 type items. I think it was a very brief period, never effected SF.
The image posted at ~22:38 where the nose of the round dug into the receiver appears to be a gun issue not a mag issue. You can clearly see the barrel extension is too far into the receiver. Appears to be an M4 notch/feed ramp on the barrel extension but hardly any M4 feedramp on the receiver. This is something you have to watch for when using M4 vs non M4 feed ramps on the receiver. That setup is literally asking for the rounds to cause issues there.
I'm an old Vietnam vet and wondering how much ammo do troops carry on a day patrol nowdays? We carried several hundred rounds, but we stayed out in the bush for weeks and we didn't get reapplied everyday.
Well I carried 11 mags on me for multi-day Ops. After 2 days on ground in SF, we had it set up for air resupply, if teams needed it. This included ammo speed balls at least a fresh basic load of 7 mags per man. Plus there was always a on call emergency ammo resupply if there was a large firefight
I was an 0311 and went to afghan a few times (Helmand). Anyways riflemen had 180 rounds (6mags) and us saw(m249) gunners had between 600-800 linked 5.56.
The ammo change was some REMF’s OER bullets point for the year, did nothing to change lethality from my experience. We switched the new “improved” round in 2010 towards end of our deployment. Saw no difference in terminal effect, only way we knocked anyone down with 556 was to hit CNS. Hips and heads were the only guarantee knock down we found, inside 100ish yards they tumbled and caused good effect. Past 300 you’re pissing in the wind, if you hit the guy they’d barely react , a through and through pin hole wound which would slow them down a bit but that’s it. We’d find blood trails and drag marks but find no bodies consistently, they were so doped up on pills they’d get away. Every time we got in a good fight we’d see multiple funerals for the next week, they’d police their brass and bodies throw them in wheelbarrows cover with grass leave the area. Our air support would report seeing an arm or leg dangling from the wheelbarrow but couldn’t get clearance to engage, they knew our ROE and would exploit them. We figured out real quick if we pinned them down with accurate fire and called in air/arty we had their asses, .50 and 40mm even had limited effect on the mud walls but made it easy for air to locate and eliminate them. Never used the Navy 77gr load but, 9mm will punch through car doors at handgun range, 556 at close range has “predictable” deflection at the right shot angles. Can’t give any info on its effectiveness against hard surfaces because I never encountered or tried them. If the enemy is wearing armor it’s time to shoot hips and heads anyhow and the most accurate round is what’s needed. M118 from our dm rifles was much more effectIve at stopping fights, nearly 3x more bullet weight than 556 green tip.
@@ModernTacticalShooting Yesr, most the guys we fought were disciplined enough to lay blankets down and police their brass and dead. We could always tell the foreigners from the locals. They would run 2 rpg gunners, a pkm, and couple flankers with ak. Just like I read about in Vietnam if they were running ak full auto you could just about stand up and walk to them. The pkm will put you behind cover quick, on rare occasions we’d encounter a dishka and that’s a scary sound for sure. If it was a locals they’d have an ak couple mags maybe a cellphone. Foreign fighters had serious ammo, maps/documents, phone and/or radio, actual kit. Weapons that were maintained and a bag full of pills. A guy who’s jacket up on anti depressant and a amphetamines will fight with no fear or feel pain. Locals would take a few shots and run off, our biggest headache was the kids with mini grenades. Bad guys would find 2-3 kids pay them to parallel us and toss a grenade over the wall. If we couldn’t roll them up quickly they’d drop/ditch them. They were smart enough to wait till pomegranates came into season before they got bold. It was nothing to see a kid with a bag them and a grenade in the bottom, if the kid drops his bag when you approach he’s riding dirty. It was always the 8-12yr olds they put up to it.
I'd like to watch one video from you that is not negative about anything related to our military or major firearms and ammo manufacturers. But still fun to watch.
Jeff, outstanding review of the M885A1. My first experience with A1 was in 2013 in Afghanistan. Has anyone else witnessed corrosion and tip separation on the 855A1?
I used a ton of M855 in training and deployed, and a good amount of M855A1 from several different AR type rifles, and both failed to impress me in accuracy, esp. as compared to MK262 or those 75 grain Hornady rounds that were around for awhile (love those). Definitely NOT "match like" accuracy. I was issued the LWRC M6 at a place I worked OCONUS, and our ammunition supply process was unpredictable- you never knew what you may get when forward deployed, so sometimes we would get MK 262, sometimes green tip. We were specifically told not to use the M855A1 round through those M6 guns. I also told our leadership if that was the case to not put it on our resupply pallets if they didn't want it getting used. I have noticed getting consistent yaw with the 75 grain Hornady rounds on pigs and deer. And I have never seen a jacketed 5.56 round NOT go through a standard vehicle door. And even 40mm HE wouldn't penetrate a afghan mud wall, and that has an explosive charge in it. And there sure is lots of body armor in circulation now- not to mention armored vehicles (thanks brandon). I do like the M193 as a general purpose round- accurate enough, mild to shoot, not hard on steel. I think I'll stick with my PMAGS. I noticed on many of the M4's in my unit, they would still be grouping good, but would fail chamber erosion. I never saw a shot out M4 barrel that PASSED chamber erosion testing.
The majority of my ammo is M855 Green Tip. I have half as much in M193, and then 100 M855 A1 for good measure. If I ever have to engage (hopefully not) in any more combat shooting it would only be in CONUS as my military days are behind me. I think what I have is probably overkill for that sort of native soil scenario. I'm shooting out of a 16 inch AR with an LPVO and offset red dot. I've only shot it out to 100, and at that junior varsity distance it is sub MOA to MOA with all three types of ammo. I think it'll do for my needs. Great video!
Yeah the vast majority of ARS, even high-end ones in my experience are 1.5-3 moa with 55gr. But my Colt 6920 and Geissele Super Duty are MOA/Sub-MOA with several different loads Most "plinking ammo" isn't loaded nearly as consistently and for the most part is 2-3 MOA ammo
FWIW, I bought a box of green tip M855 and fired it at 100 yards from my AR-15 with a 20" bbl and 1in8 twist, which is quite accurate with handloads. My handloads of 52 grain match bullets generally shoot a bit less than 1" for 10 rounds on a good day. The green tip however was more like 2" for 5 round groups (limited ammo supply). Green tip velocity was about 3250 fps, 150 fps faster than my handloads.
I carried a Mk18 with 77 gr mk262, got a hold of the M855A1 after arrival in Camp Brown and before moving to TK and other VSO camps between Cobra and TK. There was no noticeable shift from the zero I had with mk262 at 100 meters and could use the same holds all the way up to 400 meters to hit an ammo can. I say it was pretty accurate compared to M855 and decent compared to mk262.
@@ModernTacticalShooting lucky for me, I was just delivering and installing new equipment, showing the snipers how it worked and moving on. The VSO was not an easy mission for sure.
For a general purpose ball ammo it’s great stuff. Big Army needed a more environmentally friendly round. They got their more environmentally friendly round but the guys pulling the trigger got something that’s more accurate and that is more lethal.
20:46 FYI those strikes aren't below the feed ramps....the infamous M4 feed ramps were scallops (ramps) that cut into the receiver itself to extend the ramp from the barrel extension. These extended ramps are obviously softer aluminum so that's why the steel tipped A1 was chewing them up. I do agree tho it was mostly magazine issues
Gotta buddy who tested weapons at FN. They started failing mil requirements for barrel life once they started tests with the m855a1. Take it for what it's worth, but the anecdotal evidence of several thousand weapons tested gave around a 35-40% decrease in barrel life. I personally have no use for it. Especially since the accuracy (in my shooting group) will be neglible on man sized targets and I'm not willing to sacrifice my barrels since I buy them.
The tan mags did make it to unit issue, my BN got sent to Germany in march and we got 500+ of them, I tried to get them to order Pmags but they didn't like listening to a E4 armorer
Very informative video. Your ammo assessment is spot on, except your take on 5.45x39. The consistent tumble effect through soft tissue came from the Russian incorporating a hollow cavity right behind the tip of the bullet. When it hit soft tissue it deformed the tip, forcing a tumble. The early AR15's had a 1 and 12 twist which barely stablized the bullet which was used to create the tumble effect. Lastly, people seem to forget about how important the barrel is. Accuracy comes from the barrel and ammo being harmonically tuned to one and other. You can have two identical barrels, produced back to back right off the line, but their harmonic nodes will be completely different.
M193 is short, base heavy, and has a particular ogive that facilitates yawing. Combined with the cannelure being right at the typical break point, it has always been our best killer on soft targets.
I thank you for this video and the fact that you have real life experience with it and chose not to use it tells me a lot. And thank you for your service.
I was an Instructor/Writer at Benning when this stuff was being tested at AMU. The retired General who was one of the project managers sold it like a used car. Reading the claims alone I didn’t need him hard selling it to know the truth.
My experience over the past 10 or so years with it is it's no more accurate than the old green tip. Does is go through car doors well, yes however so did the old stuff. It's just ball ammo with spiffy marketing nothing more nothing less. For getting through the Kalat walls we found "pick and hammer"(.50 & 40mm) was the best way to get through it if you weren't running tow-2 BB.
That's nonsense. M855 was terrible on ballistics gel and M855A1 was amazing. If anyone misses with M855A1, you're either using the wrong barrel twist or you can't shoot. Considering that M855A1 is 62 grains, which means it wants a 1/9 barrel twist......
@@Seth9809 I have great accuracy with 62gr 5.56 and .223 out of 1:7 barrel. 55gr mil-spec ammo shoots 1”-1 ¼”, 55gr varmint ammo(Hornady, Sierra) shoots 1” or a tad less. I have noticed that .223 tends to have better accuracy, as long as I stay 55gr or heavier. I just got some 73gr loads to try.
The accuracy test seemed incomplete in my opinion, having less strings of fire for the M855 and giving what was admitted a data outlier a hugely weighted impact on the average. It looked to me that with more strings you'd be seeing an average of one MOA improvement in accuracy for the M855A1, from about 3 MOA to about 2 MOA. I'd take that improvement any time. Just like yourself, I'd like to see some more standardized testing instead of the mystical verbiage of "match-like accuracy" and a few anecdotes from the army.
Yes my intent with the video is just to address the Army's "match like" statement I know my testing incomplete. But shooting it for years when I was in, it never impressed me with its accuracy over M855
I know some snipers early on when they had to use green tip would remove the paint just to make them a little more consistent and eek out a little bit better performance
At 27:38 you say that (5.56x45mm) M855 A1 is going to be replaced in 2024 by the 6.8 ARC. Did you mean to say that? I am aware that Hornady has introduce the 6mm ARC and I am aware that as part of the NSGW (XM-5) introductions that those weapons will get a new cartridge called 6.8 x 51mm which SIG appears to have named the 277 SIG Fury. I do not know what the US military is going to call the 6.8 x 51 mm.
I think they should have taken either a 6 ARC or 6.5 Grendel and added about a millimeter to the case length and bumped up the pressure a bit and called it a day. Then make a nice lead bullet with a hardened steel tip and a special version with a coated tungsten tip for when they need improved penetration. Make the regular one with a green or blue tip and the special one with a red tip. The target range is already permanently full of lead. Lead comes in different forms and some forms are more dangerous than others. The regular metal like with bullets is not even that bad. You're not getting lead poisoning walking around a shooting range. Unless you want to get down there and lick the ground. It's the liquid form of lead that is really dangerous. Lead has the weight that you need for kinetic energy. Just make a new upper that they can slap onto the original M4 and M16 lowers with a VLTOR A5 buffer assembly. They didn't need to spend this much time and money to improve performance. The government likes to make things way too complicated and expensive. If they had a little extra money to spend they could have upgraded the trigger to a geissele G2S trigger or even just an ALG ACT trigger. I think the guys would have been perfectly happy with this setup and it would have been easier to handle the recoil than the monster that they made. I have a "20" Grendel with a rifle buffer and you can't tell the difference from 5.56 and if it were 10% more powerful, it would still be easy to shoot.
Started to see these in regular infantry in 2013. Me and a buddy put a lvl 3 steel plate at 25 and hit it with the epr rounds and it Swiss cheesed the plate. Went through and kept going. Edit: this was 2013 in Afghanistan not state side
Depends on the steel. Not all steel is the same. Fact is, there's a very wide variety out there. We've shot M855 and M855A1 on the same AR500 steel targets at the same ranges and it's a world of difference. Just like Jeff showed in his video.
With the longer barrel gas port, and the correct magazine feed angle, it runs well. With a short barrel gas tube, it's a big too much pressure. And with the wrong feed angle, the exposed steel tip will chew up an aluminum feed ramp. So your results will vary depending on the specific rifle & magazine. It's largely a solid copper hollowpoint stuck onto the back of a steel penetrator. Excellent penetration, excellent wound characteristics, and the hot powder charge squeezes the most out of 5.56. It's extra impressive when using with a 16 or 20 inch barrel, instead of 14.5 in the military's m4 carbine. M193 is very good, especially with a 16", or better, a 20" barrel. In closer ranges, the tumbling it tends to do is just "messy" in all the ways you'd want a military gun to be messy. M855 has good barrier-agnostic trajectory. It doesn't deflect off glass & such very easily. But it's terminal performance is abysmal. When you combine M855 with a 14.5" barrel (which costs velocity), it's not hard to see why the 5.56 got some unfavorable reviews in terminal performance. Also, it's lower velocity (both from projectile weight, and it's typical use in shorter barrels) means it actually doesn't penetrate hard objects any better. Actually it's penetration is worse than M193. M855A1 has the barrier-agnostic trajectory. But the hot powder charge gets the velocity back up, so it penetrates as well as M193 on hard barriers. The terminal performance is very good, doesn't tumble as well as M193, but the exposed steel tip seated in a copper cup opens up in soft tissue like a ballistic-tip, making a big hole. The fact that M855A1 tears up training hardware, actually speaks well of it's terminal performance. Get better training hardware. It's an excellent bullet design. It being "green" is entirely beside the point of it. Accuracy... some of them have the steel penetrator "loose" in the projectile (you can spin the top). On the specific projectiles that have loose steel tips, spin stabilization and general accuracy suffers. If you go through them and separate out the loose tipped cartridges, the remainder are fairly accurate. Ideally the military should specify this as a standard for accepting ammo, but the ordinance department is pretty much a blind dog looking for bones. M855A1 _can_ be _very_ accurate. Use M193 or M855A1 (make sure you have a long tube, and the right magazine for M855A1 though). Avoid M855 like the plague, it makes petite holes, and doesn't penetrate as well as M193 even. Target practice only. Also, going down to 14.5" (or even less) is ill advised no matter what cartridge is used. CQB length is nice, but not if it's gimping your terminal performance significantly and increasing your muzzle flash quite a bit (or tearing up a can more rapidly) at the same time. Side Note: 5.45mmR military ammo actually has a copper plated steel jacket (the copper protects the rifling). Inside that, it uses a very soft lead, and has a tiny air gap at the tip. On impact, the soft lead rushes forward, and the air pocket gets compressed into a "bubble" of air, in a filled tip. The odds of this bubble being perfectly centered is near zero. The steel jacket is strong enough to prevent deformation. The result is that on impact, the bullet becomes unbalanced (due to an off-center air pocket inclusion), and will tumble (immediately, and violently). It works very well, but only with the mil-spec russian ammo which has this design. Aftermarket 5.45 examples with regular FMJ construction do not have the velocity to bend & tumble significantly. In M193, the tumbling is more caused by the bullet's velocity, and it becoming bent on impact. It's not caused by spin-induced yaw. Actually it tumbles better with less spin (1in12 ideally, but definitely not more than 1in9). It will tumble through the target, or tumble 90 degrees, and then break in half making 2 wound channels. Both are drastically more traumatic than M855, which is stable, robust, a bit slow, and almost never tumbles. Accurate, yes. But not traumatic. M855 makes a 22 caliber hole with a small halo of supersonic hydrostatic trauma. It doesn't impart all that much energy within the target medium, and is not very effective (unless the small hole is critically placed). Nothing (shot out of a rifle) penetrates afghan walls. Not even close. I don't think it's even something to bring up in rifle performance. As far as penetrating chest plates... no, the M855A1 doesn't penetrate them. But neither does any other 5.56, nor the new 6.8mm. Chest plates are pretty hard.
If you're gonna choose a Duty load I would make a suggestion. Get BONDED SOFT POINTS my dude. Federal TBBC or Speer Gold Dots ECT. I personally went with 62gr so they share virtually identical POI as my training ammo (PMC XTAC). Altho I have been quite impressed with the AAC 77gr OTMs, at $10.99/box on sale I've acquired Almost 6k of em lol and have found them to shoot very well (around 1-1.5MOA averaged) out of my 2 uppers (A 16" Colt 6920 and a Geissele Super Duty 14.5) for the price it's all I buy anymore. But as far as duty ammo is concerned, I've found Bonded Soft Points to be the Pinnacle of performance across the board IF selecting ammo that isn't going to penetrate armour ANYWAYS. they certainly have the best performance against common urban barriers especially such as auto glass, walls, door panels ECT while still giving excellent terminal performance across the board both with and without barriers in the mix. We aren't in Afghanistan we don't have to worry about mud walls, what we have to worry about most is other common barriers here stateside such as sheetrock, furniture, vehicles and tempered auto glass, ECT.
@mrdark9916 I've since stocked a fair bit of TBBC. I've also stacked a bunch of 70gr TSX and that's been my go to since it and mk262 uses roughly the same zero in my rigs. I have a dedicated rig for tbbc and other lighter weight loads.
@@Appalachia_Ape that's actually a very good point, and something I always tell people to try to do. Pick a good load, that shares a POI with your training ammo as closely as possible. Luckily through my 14.5 Geissele upper that's dialed for my BSPs my 55 and 62gr XTAC training ammo share virtually identical, but the AAC 77s ALSO literally overlap impact zone. They still land dead center only mabey ¼ to the right, and only about .75moa higher at 100yds so for all intents and purposes I can swap freely between them if need be. As I have so many of them stocked now. But the 77s are mainly designated for my old Colt upper since I built it out more like an SPR. it's not nearly as accurate with as many loads as the Geissele upper, but with those AAC 77s it's about 1-1.5MOA so it lives on them now. Bigger 2-10 optic with more data, more for longer pokes on "unsuspecting targets" with increased first round hit probability, but that doesn't completely abandon the ability to do closer work if the situation forces it on me, so it has an offset red dot as well to solve those problems. And also to serve as an "overwatch rifle" for the family property. Up on the hill surrounding the property I can see every field and road leading up to our land out to about 600yds so that played a role on the selection as well. We have a few 762 AR10s in the family available but I like the option for 556 in that role logistically as well. The Geissele is built out more "do it all" with a 1-6 and Offset red dot. Something I can use more general purpose but still make effective hits to 500 if need be, but favoring more inside short-mid range faster shooting where barriers are potentially more of an issue and a little more meneuverability, without completely abandoning the ballistics I want. To me 14.5 is the shortest I'll go with 556. I've actually considered many times selling my 16-inch Colt upper and swapping it for an 18 or 20inch upper to lock in the "SPR role" for that setup. But I've never been able to bring myself to do it... I love that upper so much lol it was my first and I've had it for years. And I just don't need a 3rd personally I have other stuff I am trying to save and acquire so the 16 will have to work for the role. If only I was a bajillionare....... 😂 Right now I'm saving for a thermal unit. Still researching but something that can be handheld or a clip-on for my rifles. That's my next big force multiplier
@@Appalachia_Ape I do really like the 70gr TSX loads, they fuck. They just tend to sheer petals and lose some weight and expansion against barriers like auto glass ECT but still a solid option. But if there's nothing between that bullet and the target, they fuuuuck lol 😂 I know a couple ppl who use em for deer they are a solid well rounded performer. I mostly just use the extensive FBI testing and what LE/federal agencies are using and why and then try to balance performance and price as best as possible. All ya can do really
What about other manufacturer's M855? I've got Danish M855 from their AMA (NATO spec) plant. The first two rounds out of my 20" match grade barrel (Old school, no muzzle break/flash hider, just concave shape at the muzzle) are going through the same hole at 100 yards. For me, it appears to shoot like match grade.
In Army BCT in 2001 we fired at either a 400 or 500 familiarization range that had a pit where half the platoon would lower and raise the targets with grouping markers. With an m16a2 and iron sights there were several of us that could get groupings like that on man size targets. I get it the m4 is shorter but I think it could definitely be done with an ACOG. I can also tell you that an ACOG is precise because I won a bet to shred one of those little glow sticks at night, that went in the tripower, without any issue. Two shots were allowed and I hit it twice. It was significantly smaller the second time. With the mass issue of red dots shooting fundamentals took a hit. Red dots and holo optics have clear advantages but I am a big fan of still learning with irons first. Unfortunately, those training hours are hard to come by.
I don't know why they don't take the new SIG case technology with the steel bottom and the brass case and apply it to the 5.56x45 essentially raising the pressure's and maybe using a heavier projectile to achieve faster fps and longer range I would hope.. Just saying
@@ModernTacticalShooting You mirrored my thoughts on it from my security job days overseas. Logistics was the other issue. At least in the private sector.
was it worth 100 million dollars to the military? No. what was it worth 100 million of the US federal budget to keep a factory open in a congressional district and that individual elected to congress every single time? absolutely.
Lol we spent a million dollars in one day swapping out APR-39 signal processors that kept frying due to a short. That was for ONE single SOF helicopter. 100 mil in DoD bux is small potatoes. The enormity of DoD spending is only realized in places like Aircraft mx, Space operations and DARPA.
I have great groups results using m855. not sure where the bad accuracy rumors came from unless its shooter error or a faux m855 manufacturing process. thanks for the cool vid.
During the Surge period in Iraq I remember reading the reports that the Army was accepting M855 batches that failed the accuracy specs due to the need. Maybe it was a bigger issue when massed production had to double-time it.
The best consistent accuracy I've ever had was about 1.5MOA. I've shot a small handful of sub-MOA groups, but those aren't normal. M855 was never designed to be accurate. It's not a myth that it's not very good, it's by design.
Its worth noting... the "green bullet" wasnt just about the environment. It was also about logistics, independence, and national security. When this program started, there was only one lead refinery in the US. That refinery not doing well financially, and everybody saw the writing on the wall. The environment was a good political story. But this was done so we wouldn't have to rely on foreign powers, should our last lead refinery go under. And it did.
On Afghan Walls: He’s not joking. They might be made with a mixture of portland cement and goat dung, but unless they’re hit right next to a corner, or at the top edge they’ll shrug off a shot from an AT4 or RPG-7, no problem. And at the same time they’re soft enough that you can walk up and pull chunks out with your hand. Weird tech, but very tough.
It essentially acts like compacted sand.
You know how good sand is at stopping projectiles.
@@pewpewTN SAANNNDDD!!!?!?!??!??
@@pewpewTN I don't like sand. It's rough and it gets everywhere
I've seen one take a whole belt of .50 and still stand
@@cascadianrangers728love the pfp
When 10th mountain made the switch, my groups were cut, literally in half as far as size. We also saw a significant increase in the marksmanship scores during rifle qualifications across the board. I am a huge fan of the new “green “round.
I have also seen some ballistics gel tests on yt that show it has far far better terminal performance in soft targets compared to M855. Regular green tip will sometimes zip through soft targets without tumbling or really dumping any energy, or will tumble really deep like 7-8 inches in at which point it would already be most if not all the way trough a body. So its a bit more accurate and better terminal performance on soft and hard targets. Seems like a good improvement to me.
10th Light Infantry division "Mountain" 85-86.
Biden's gift to the Taliban Billions worth of our Taxes & weapons. & The reason they didn't develop a better Round is because they want to stretch War out it makes the Elites more money
@@Nick-sx6jmthat performance depends almost entirely on the weapon used and the range to the target. The AR-15 platform was designed for a 55gr bullet and a 1:9 twist out of a 20” barrel. By the time you shoot a 62gr bullet out of a 14.5” barrel with a 1:7 twist you lose so much velocity the bullet won’t tumble on impact beyond about 100m. That’s fine for a carbine. It’s not for a battle rifle. That’s why the Marine Corps adopted the M16A4 with a 20” barrel.
@@coryhoggatt7691wrong
Where M855A1 shines is that it still fragments at much lower velocities, like close to 1600FPS. This is around the 600 yard mark for 12.5" to 14.5" barreled rifles. Old M855 minimum fragmenting velocities vary between 2700 to 2500 FPS, which out of an M4 doesnt get you very far.
Bingo. Plus M193/M855 suffer from fleet yaw that causes inconsistent performance even within the fragmentation velocity range.
@ChadTheAfricanBullfrog I don't think the OP even made mention of seeing the effects of A1 against a enemy. It's gel results still give an indication of it's potential performance in living tissue and M855A1 has been proven by many with public gel tests to be superior to M855..
@ChadTheAfricanBullfrog Martin Fackler, who popularized the gel test, was a field surgeon in Vietnam and likely had more experience with 5.56 wounds than anyone else. Gel isn’t something made by guys in lab coats that have never fired a gun before, it’s something made by a combat surgeon who had extensive experience documenting GSWs.
This guy wasn’t very specific at all as to whether the terminal performance was better or worse, and said the information was secondhand anyway. M855 and M193 performance is notoriously inconsistent, and if we just listened to one person and jettisoned gel tests we would either come to the conclusion that M193 is amazing or terrible, when the reality is that it can be either one, depending on the AOA from fleet yaw.
Buh…but my gel test showed it would work, buh…
Ballistic gel is nothing but a consistent test medium from which to compare various projectiles, nothing more, nothing less. It literally is for lab use *only*. There’s a reason why an ammo maker will spend years developing a bullet in the *lab* and then take it to Texas or someplace similar to shoot living animals. Then they find that it really doesn’t work as advertised. Why? Because even when you add test barriers in front or inside the gel they aren’t consistent. There’s a huge difference between live bone and dead bone, so adding a pig scapula inside the block isn’t accurate either.
@@soonerfrac4611 yeah none of that is accurate.
Martin Fackler initially took wound profiles from his experience as a field surgeon in Vietnam. When he later headed the Wound Ballistics Laboratory, they initially used pigs. First anesthetized, then later dispatched and used before rigor mortis set in. He then popularized the use of properly calibrated 10% 250A porcine gelatin not because it was simply consistent, but because it correlated closely with the average wound found in pig and human tissue. This was further demonstrated by Gene Wolberg’s study “Performance of the Winchester 9mm 147 Grain Jacketed Hollow Point Bullet in Human Tissue and Tissue Simulant” published in the IWBA’s Wound Ballistics Review (Winter 1991, Volume 1, Number 1, Page 10).
I used to work in bullet manufacturing for a specialty bullet company. We had several .mil type contracts for our bullets, including for Mk262 type 77gr OTM’s.
I probably made millions of them.
Mk262 is actually significantly cheaper to manufacture. It takes 1/3 of the steps to make and maybe 1/5 the amount of man hours to make compared to a polymer tip hunting bullet.
The real advantage of the 77gr OTM is that it’s easy to keep it consistent in the manufacturing process. Weights stayed spot on to two tenths of a grain, and OAL stayed right around an inch. Because of the simplicity of the design, the bullet was easy to produce in great quantity with good quality.
Great info! I don't claim to be a bullet expert by no means. I consider myself just an end user, so any details on actual bullet design and production is cool
IMO MK262 can’t be beat. But for general range use, I usually run M193. Then re-zero with MK262 when I’m done.
@Kevin Almgren
LOL, tell me you worked for Black Hills or Sierra without saying that you worked for Black Hills or Sierra…
I think Jeff Hoffman from Black Hills is very much responsible for that.
@@bluntsmoke1872 The one place that it does get beat in my opinion is with bonded soft points. They are less velocity and barrier sensitive. But I would have no qualms about using either one they're both fantastic
I work for a body armor company, and tests M855A1 almost weekly. To give you an idea of my familiarity with this round, the thumbnail of this video (at the time of this comments posting) is actually showing M80A1 loaded in a magazine, the 7.62x51 version of this round.
I have to say M855A1 (per the BATFE) IS considered an actual AP round while M855 is considered EP or MSC. To note, anything that punches through level III steel can be considered "AP", but for the sake of this conversation, Ill keep that to projectiles with a hardened steel insert that can punch through level III steel.
I've seen M855A1 out of a 20" barrel punch through some RF2 (III+) plates with relative consistency while M855/M193 does not (again take note; RF2, NOT RF1, or NIJ level III, as M855 out of a 20" will punch through RF1/ NIJ III).
There is an enhanced design of this projectile in the form of a kinetic "bump" that is similar to a tank sabot. The rear end of the projectile acts like a hammer while the hardened steel insert punches through a surface making sure there is a little extra umph when it gets through a hard surface like steel.
I don't have any data the army has, nor any anti-personal stats of the round that you may have but don't want people to walk away from this video thinking M855A1 is over hyped. Its not.
IF I had to cite my personal experience with this round, it's that its far more effective than standard MSC/ EP rounds (SS109 and M855), but not as effective as Teflon or tungsten carbide rounds.
What's relevant to this conversation however is projectile availability. While Black tip SS190 (not to be confused with SS109) 5.56 is all but unobtanium, M855A1 falls off the back of the supply truck pretty often.
No, I'm not at liberty to say what company I work for and what plates are defeated, but a simple search online will show this.
Good info in this video from the perspective of a retired SF operator, but not exactly inline with my personal testing and others who have posted results online.
Another (un)fun-fact about A1 is that you have to be careful of the steel penetrator that protrudes out of the front of the projectile. Because its not like normal M855, the exposed penetrator is susceptible to rust from (oxidization) sweat and water and if you keep rounds loaded in mags in humid environments for long periods of time, its likely you could end up with rust deformation and pitting of the projectile that could case an ogive flight path, deteriorating accuracy.
Good information I mentioned it in a few responses.. I'm not really a bullet expert I'm an end user and yes the video is going off of my view of downrange information and not scientific testing.
What a bullet can and can't penetrate on a federasl level doesn't denote whether it's Armor Piercing or not. It's solely based on 1> That it can be used in a pistol (5.56 can), and it's 2 > construction. There's varying gray areas on what the ATF has considered the "core" of the bullet. One could argue that the M855A1's core is copper, and the tip is the penetrator, but the ATF does what it wants.
Do you have any data on what period of time is needed to cause rusting and degradation of the exposed steel? All production M855A1 has a rust inhibitor coating on it..
M193 goes through level 3 steel like butter and it's a copper jacket with soft lead. I guess it's AP. I guess all .270 is AP, too.
@@spraynpray
M193 does not go through level III like butter. Velocity is relevant with M193. M193 out of a 16" or less barrel will not pass through level III. M193 out of an barrel length greater than 16" will pass through with increasing frequency as the barrel length is increased.
Reread what I said:
"To note, anything that punches through level III steel can be considered "AP", but for the sake of this conversation, Ill keep that to projectiles with a hardened steel insert that can punch through level III steel."
In other words, yes the rounds you cited could be interpreted as Armor Piercing, but only in the sense that they pierce armor (as you noted), not in the sense that they are designed to and left the factory with the intention of defeating armor.
@@spraynpray Velocity defeats armor, not weight. M193 from a full length barrel is +3000 FPS.
When I worked at the Pentagon, HQDA spent $1.4 million to decorate about 100 feet of hallway outside a general’s office. $100 million is a steal for something actually useful.
The M107 155mm round out preformed the M855 and the M855A1 lol. Thank you for sharing your experience with M855A1
I prefer the 84mm Carl Gustav myself
@ Modern Tactical Shooting
I find it very ironic that your Bravos had to wheel and deal just to get proper ammo and such. As MP on our SRT (early ‘02 time frame) we had to consistently beg borrower and tactically acquire just about everything. Ammo, range time, smoke grenades, even M4’s because our parent unit didn’t have any assigned to us so we took over spare M4’s from the local CID & RCF. We would run M9 ranges for artillery officers and SNCO’s just to get extra training time, or borrow tools and gear. We had zero up armored vehicles at that time also.
@@soonerfrac4611 SF still Army and we had our own funding problems too. Part what makes a 18B or Cs excel is their ability to wheel and deal to get stuff or get something done.
Ha ha, OP, were you a Redleg?
I don’t know if they are still loading it as hot as the original spec, but that stuff beat our M4s to death. My unit did a series of ranges in Alaska in 2017 and it took almost 10% of our rifles out of the fight over two weeks. We had so many broken bolt lugs, it was incredible.
It made me want to buy an extra bolt and keep it with me.
I carried a spare bolt in my pack on mission, after I broke a bolt on the range in Afghanistan. I figured sure.... I put a new bolt in and doubt it would fail. But I figured all the team's carbines had close to the same high round counts, so just in case a teammates bolt broke on mission, I had one to offer.
@ Riorozen
Combination of “lowest bidder” and the fact that it was developed for a lower level to begin with.
You probably already had significant gas port erosion on your M4's before fielding M855a, and the new higher pressure round just exponentially accelerated the deterioration of your carbines.
@@ModernTacticalShooting It's good to keep stuff in stock because if there was ever a time were you need to start burning the tires in the street, the people you defend your community with might need it.
The original A1 load was about 10% hotter than M855 but later development found a powder charge that would get the same velocity results with only a 5% increase in pressure. That's what was briefed at the Wilson match a few years ago.
As the state marksmanship coordinator for the national guard in my state we did some work with these rounds on a known distance range. Using our All Guard shooters (and other team shooters but I was mostly paying attention to our All Guard members) we saw a noticable improvement in groups fired at 300 yards, the only yard line we fired both rounds. If you discount the worst round of either 855 or 855A1 5 round groups the A1 was clearly superior. It was about 1 MOA better. Including the fliers it was still almost a half minute tighter over the 5 groups of 5 rounds. I think including the .8 MOA group of the M855, that you admitted was an aberration, skews your results.
As for lethality it's my understanding that the fragmentation threshold for M855 is about 2600fps but that for the A1 it's about 1900fps. I can't confirm that from experience but maybe one day I'll get some test media and try it out.
As for the mags, we got them in bulk in the guard about a year and a half ago. Can't say I've seen much of a difference in mags, assuming they are not damaged. Damaged mags are shit no matter the specifics.
I'll see if I can find the notes from our informal tests on the KD range as my comments are from memory. I can say with confidence that we saw a noticable improvement in accuracy.
Sounds very similar to our state's experience. We used up the last of our green tip stuff in 2020 and saw an increase in points during TAG rounds in both 2021 and 2022; as an "and but" our over all numbers for competition was less in 21 and 22, but our range of experience was more diverse and should have had a greater variance. I can't speak too personally on the performance as I consider myself a horrible marksman with horrible eyes who compensates by a lot of range time; but the A1 rounds have only seem to perform on par or better with guys using the M4 rifles on red dots. The guys with that and ACOG's have seen an average increase, as well as the A2's and A4's (M16) both iron sight and ACOG.
This pretty much matches the test the AF tests from '10 comparing 855, 855A1, and Mk318. Ultimately our field tests showed Mk318 slightly more accurate (about .06 mil), but not enough to allow hits that 855A1 would not allow. Green tip M855 was the least accurate by about .2 mil. The most significant difference was in wounding. Inside 50-75 meters M855A1 was only slightly better than M855. Past that distance, the M855A1 was CLEARLY superior to legacy M855 and Mk262. Our testing was only out to 613M. On a side note, wounding for the Mk318 was characterized as "acceptable" at short to medium ranges, but far inferior to the M855A1 at all tested ranges.
@@anthonybarker9123 in my initial read my brain read MOA where you wrote Mil. For a moment I thought your numbers seemed wrong to me. I quickly realized you were using mil. I'm old and learned moa, not mil.
I've become a fan of the A1 and wish we could get it for my civilian job. Sadly we are using M855 out of our 11.5 inch guns.
Its 1600 fps sec min
@@anthonybarker9123At 600 Meters what are the MOA wind constants for each cartridge? I get an 8.5 constant from Mk262 which means I can counter uncertain wind better than other rounds.
M855A1 might see a longer service life in Big Army far beyond the adoption of 6.8mm because my gut feeling is that the higher-ups will hopefully understand (or maybe planned all along???) that NGSW is better suited to replace the .308 lineup and the 5.56mm SAW rather than the 5.56mm carbine.
Edit: If I remember correctly, Jeff covered this in the Practical Accuracy NGSW vid (link's in the description).
Yes agree
Great insight. We can only hope.
Sounds like they're going to have to improve the bolts and barrel extensions on older M-4s, and maybe go to a stainless hybrid case for M-855a1. Or a1(b) or whatever you'd like to call it.
@@dangvorbei5304 LMT Enhanced Bolt could probably fix all of those problems. I don't know enough about metallurgy to say if you would need a beefed-up barrel extension as well, but if you are breaking those I think you have bigger problems.
@@Laotzu.Goldbug That's an awesome idea, and there's bound to be a way to handle the barrel extensions as well. SIG isn't about to share their secrets, but as LMT demonstrated, they aren't the only game in town. Next, to do something about this BS 5moa rebuild standard.
That was very informative. Those photos from your deployments are awesome. I'd have to agree with you. 1MOA is the gold standard for match grade accuracy. Great video.
One thing most people don't talk about is the flash suppressant in the powder. It works very well at night
Does it take a break during the day?
Great video. In the Army Infantry. We were issued tan follower mags when i got in in 2012 and up till 2016, then they started issuing everyone Gen 3 PMAGs
This is accurate. Don't forget the magpul stanmags as well in between. They are the Tan metal mags.
1sfg/7sfg maintainer here. When we had the a1 issued to us we saw a massive jump in bolt breakages. New and old bolts were subject to this.
Good to know!
@@ModernTacticalShooting my pleasure, it was a blight when they rolled into the training fold. It pushed teams to shoot mk262 for basically 8 ish months before the powers that be deemed it cost ineffective. From a maintainer standpoint we had issues in a few arenas from bolts, gas rings and barrel wear and tear.
@@Foxholefirearms Yes I always assumed more damage and my team we shot a shit ton, I was surprised to not see more guns go down on my ODA.
@@ModernTacticalShooting luckier than our guys, granted at the time all this was going down at 1sfg I was at the GSB as a civi augmentee, but I can say one thing that made a bit of difference was the roll out of the URGI with its mid length gas system. That little extra dwell time cut back on bolt lugs shearing thankfully
I bought a can of Federal M193 5.56mm stripper clips in 2018 or 2019. A few months ago I got to that can, and I was at the range loading mags when I saw a single M855A1 round on one of the stripper clips. That round is on my wall shelf now lol.
Are you sure it wasn’t an underpowered reduced range training round?
Marine here, were issued mk262 when I was in Afghan, saw the aftermath of a combatant’s leg afterward and jeez, his whole calf was gone. Didn’t see that type of flesh damage with the army’s m855A1 in my experience
Saw 855A1 explode a dude's face.
Really the takeaway here is that getting shot is pretty trash.
Yeah the Mk262 is a soft bullet and when it hits bone, it fragments. Much better external ballistics. When I was in Afghan, we had the M855, M855A1, the Mk-318 mod 0 and the Mk262. We played around with it at the range at Leatherneck when I got there and told the ammo tech that I’d rather have the Mk-318 mod 0 and the Mk-262. The new Mk-318 mod 1 has a nickel jacket. I got a friend that’s still active at Camp Pendleton. I retired in 2015.
Semper
This will be good!
ETA: Good summary. We didn't noticed any performance improvement over M855 when we used it for our deployment in 2017.
I hope!!!! BTW Thanks again for the mag!
I suspect A long winded way to say NO! Guns breaking even faster (via glorified "Proof Loadings") in A military that already poorly services and maintains weapons and keeps them in service too long ............... VERY BAD IDEA! The shorter barrel fetish should necessitate A change of caliber.
@@ModernTacticalShooting happy to help.
Great work again Jeff. A complete work up on the SOST MOD1 would be greatly appreciated. I've been amazed with this round for a while now. I was lucky to get some of this ammo before the price went crazy and availability dried up.
Be safe out there
Honestly I probably won't be doing a video on that seeing how I have no real experience with that ammo
Thanks Jeff - that was really interesting. When I was in USMC ITR in 1970 we had those aluminum 20 round magazines and they were complete pieces of crap. They weren't all the same size - so the M-16A1's we had had an adjustment to the magazine latch. Once I was issued two magazines for training. The first was too fat and would not go in the weapon - so I had to adjust the magazine catch to fit it in. When I fired that magazine off - I put the next magazine in - and it was a skinny one - so the bolt going home drove the magazine right out of the weapon and into the dirt ...
I was not happy but at least that happened in training. I never saw combat. My contribution to the Vietnam War was being a sentry in California.
Of course, the Army does not have a good history on things like ammunition. The ammunition Custer's troops had did not have brass casings - they were copper. Which had been bought because it was cheaper. The end result of that was that if you fired the weapon to fast the weapon would heat up and the copper would swell tight against the chamber. The extractor would tear off the base of the round - instead of extracting it - leaving a copper coated chamber that you could not fit another round into. Troopers had to take the points of their knives and try to pry the copper out of their chambers in order to load another round.
When the Army became aware of the problem - they stopped buying the copper cased rounds - but - they issued all the ones they'd paid for ...
.
Back in the day for me (early 90s) when we had the black follower 30 rounder, similar problems. I would take a dozen mags to the range, always a couple that did not work, I would mark those that did and stick to them only. green follower mags came out around 1998, they are still them best GI mag I think.
@@ModernTacticalShooting Yeah. That was smart. We had to turn ours in when they said to so we just had whatever they gave us.
One day after training - it was
"Turn all your magazines in!"
Then
"Don't turn your magazines in!"
Then
"Turn all your magazines in!
Then
"Don't turn your magazines in!"
So - after the last one - I went to the guy I'd turned my magazines in to and he didn't have any more ...
So - for the next little while, I had a one round M-16. I'd get the bolt back and stick a round into the chamber through ... I believe ... the magazine well ... though it could have been the ejection port ... I don't remember. We were just firing blanks, chasing each other around the hills on Camp Pendleton.
*_Bang!_*
*_Bang!_*
_"You're dead!"_
_"No I'm not! I shot you first!"_
Such an "improvement" over when I was 11 and chasing my friends through the woods around the MOQ's on Camp Lejeune ...
Never had problems like that with the Steel (?) Magazines for my M-14's. We spent like 3 weeks (?) at Edson Range and I never had a feed problem with an M-14.
When I was a sentry and we had an alert ( *_Bong! Bong! Bong! Bong!_* ) - you'd grab your M-14 out of your wall locker, pull on your pants and sprint down to the Guard Office where they handed out magazines (two iirc) to the guys piling into the backs of pick up trucks to respond to the alert. Then _Off we'd go ..._
We'd turn those back in when we came back from the alert. So we never got to keep any magazines with our weapons. I'm pretty sure they didn't want us to have loaded weapons in the barracks. The only time I ever had ammunition for a weapon - was when I was ON post. We had 1911A1's for Gate Posts and Roving Patrols - but those weapons (with two magazines ea. and only had 5 rounds ea. to keep the springs from becoming depressed) stayed on post with the relief. Same with the M-14 magazines on Walking Posts and Watch Towers. Never had a feed problem with a 1911 either ...
[shrug]
I don't think I ever knew a Marine (and I served with a LOT of Combat Veterans) who didn't love the M-14 and hate the M-16. I do not envy you guys that weapon or it's descendants. Not one damn bit.
.
We hit a qulat wall with an AT-4 and it didn't even make a big enough hole to fit through. People hear "mud hut" and they think something made of paper.
Yessssss. Thank you for pointing out some reality
Yup there bunkers.
If M855A1 isn't such a big improvement on M855, why is it so hard for civilians to get their hands on M855A1? The exclusivity makes it seem like it's some miracle cartridge that the government wants to keep out of civvie hands.
Reason: Army sold M855A1 hard as the "wonder Bullet"
@@KeterMalkuth pretty sure the govt is prohibited from holding patents
You can get M855A1 but its $3 a round lol . Shark Arms has some
rarity does not equal quality.
Nobody wants to spend the money to ramp up production at this time.
Tactical Hive tested M193 out of 14" ,16" , 20" barrel's using 2" reems of paper, twelve inches in front of a steel target from ten yrs out. The 14" went through 4 reems hitting the steel target staying intact. The 16" went through 3.5 reems fragmenting into small pieces. The 20" went through 3 reems totally fragmentation turning into dust) . As Coach said " The hundred pound heads" knew what they were doing with maximum velocity in the shortest barrel too achieve the greatest damage without over penatration, the 16" barrel was the ticket=(The Vietnam era) Later on, Urban combat required a shorter 14" barrel fighting in buildings where walls were much thicker able to stop rounds passing through , the 14 inch became the new fighting weapon for close quarters combat= CQB.(Afghanistan era)
Ream
That Mark 262 performs very well out of my suppressed Centurion cold hammer forged CL'd barrel. I'm glad I stocked up on that stuff.
855A1 terminal performance seems to do prett well. Out of 14.5 barrels it I've seen it fragment in gel.
Great video and very informative. Good to hear first hand knowledge and not internet lore. Also, thanks for the mention.
Alot of internet lore going around in all things firearms related
One of the biggest issues (speaking as a current active duty armorer) is chamber and throat erosion, especially in the 249. If a 249 goes to the range, one of the barrels will almost certainly be deadlined because of the gouges that M855A1/M856A1 (tungsten tracer)
This channel is so good...how good ? I actually watch through the advertisements to watch it...that's how good. Great analysis without all the BS....straight dope.
One of the most experienced channel's I've found. Appreciate your opinions and experience. Now if only the government would take less than a decade to make changes and adjust fire based on guys like your feedback we'd be sittin pretty. Also, probably need a new Commander in Chief.
Former 10th group dude, here. Solid video, I concur with what you found. I would swap the barrels at 3" or greater.
Excellent report.
Thanks for your work, honest opinions and service to our Nation.
Very good amount if info packed into this video. Having not worn a uniform since 1990 and only having to deal with AR platforms from the civilian LE point of view since, I didn’t t even know about the 855A1 until may 2019 after reading something about the round. I’ve bought green tip but found that after shooting mostly 1-9 barrels since 2004, the 55 grain variants seemed to have sufficient accuracy potential. I’ve gotten as tight as .6 MOA with V-Max 55 grain and some Israeli surplus M193 I bought in 1992-93 was capable of knocking over 2x4 inch prairie dog silhouettes at 500M after aging gracefully in a can for 28 years. That out of a 14.5 P&N 1-9 barrel. I have never shot any of the MK262 but had understood that in addition to accuracy, it was found to have ballistic benefits in shorter barreled platforms. I also have a 16 inch 1-7 that I’ve used to get some fairly decent slightly over MOA groups with some 75 grain commercial, but really didn’t have enough ammo to say it should be my go to.
My question is - with the Mk262 having superior accuracy benefits and a solid track record, why didn’t the Army simply adopt it in place of blowing money on development of the M855A1? (I know…. I know…..)
Great video, clear and concise like usual.
Without being military (outside of ROTC, was RE4 due to an eye injury) I can say based on the ballistic data and combat reports plus personal testimonies from soldiers I have talked to that YES it was worth the 100 Million Dollar Switch.
M855A1 EPR is more than just a new 5.56 and 7.62 round (M80A1 EPR is the 7.62 NATO version)... this new round is THE GENERAL PURPOSE design for the foreseeable future. It improved accuracy, GREATLY improved barrier defeating performance, and also better armor penetration even though its not an AP round, the design just makes it better at it, and finally its TERMINAL performance is superb with how it shreds the jacket and creates multiple permanent wound cavities in the target, all while adhering to the Hague Convention standards that we never ratified in the first place.
Just one small point I would like to make is that the new 6.8x51 cartridge for the NGSW is not “6.8 ARC”. It’s more commonly known as “.277 Fury”. Awesome video on a round unknown to a lot of shooters.
"Advanced Rifle Cartridge"?
@@Laotzu.Goldbug Yes, that’s what ARC stands for in the above comment. If you google “6.8 ARC” nothing pops up for it. It is all 6.8 SPC and 6mm ARC. Why? Because it is not called 6.8 ARC.
@@creekochee3592 that's what I thought. So oes it have an official DoD designation at this point? I know that ".277 Fury" is the commercial trademark that Sig is selling it under on the civilian market, but I don't think that the Army is going to be calling it that...
@@Laotzu.Goldbug It’s not what you thought because 6.8 ARC would be copyright infringement on Hornady… in my comment I was quoting the video, I thought you were asking if that’s what “ARC” meant in my comment. It is not called that.
More than likely, it will be called 6.8x51 because the DoD doesn’t assign anything other than metric caliber measurement. Colloquially, by the people who will carry it, probably just 6.8 or 6.8 Fury.
@@creekochee3592 well 6.8x51 will be the measurement but not the _designation_ for the cartridge. I'm referring to something like M193, M855, etc.
I'm a year late to this one, but, from seeing our State's NG shooting team, and working the ranges with them, we definately saw tighter groups going from greentip to A1s. Some of these guys are National-level good shooters and I have seen/scored 5-shot groupings of sub-moa out to 400y. These are out of issued, but in great shape, M4a1s with 4x Elcans. As the EPR round starts to become affordable, and civilian use gets more widespread, be careful to use the 'improved' mag, or at least the new followers, that give the round a slight lift at the nose. It will help prevent the scouring effect on the feed ramps from that sharp point digging in. My personal 14.5" already shows a few scour marks, where the ramp meets the barrel, just from one old GI mag (tan follower) with 30 rds fired. Awesome round though...very flat shooting and fast.
What are the improved mags? Would any modern magpul mag be considered improved?
@@StreetLight099 the "improved" is just a tan color metal gi mag with a no tilt follower that has a slight upward cant so the tip of round doesnt dig in as the round feeds. The tungsten will scour the feed with standard magpul or old GI.
Thank you for all your info.
Thanks for the first hand report on M855A1. We get so much political "Gas Lighting" from the military "Managers", that I don't have a lot of faith in what they have to say. I had heard that the Army had to reduce the chamber pressure of this round once it was issued. I know there is no way to measure that in the field, but have you heard that too?
Regarding the 6.8x51 round, all the videos I see are guys shooting the low pressure "Practice Ammo" and not the full power 80,000 to 100,000 PSI "Combat Ammo". I imagine the reason for every rifle having a suppressor is the incredible report from such a high pressure round out of a 13" barrel. I was able to talk to the SIG development team and they weren't allowed to disclose any AP data, as the Army requested that they not discuss it. I did handle all the new weapons and the M5 is ridiculously long and heavy and for CQB, I would say it is less then ideal. Personally I think this rifle is going to be quietly dropped once it gets in the hands of the trigger pullers.
The new 338 machine gun, which is lighter than the M240B and supposedly uses a shorter round than the 338 Lapua Mag, impressed me as the pressure was reasonable and it didn't require the new hybrid case. I could see this replacing the M240B in the Medium Machine Gun role. The 6.8x51 M250 is much lighter than the M249 and if chambered for the 7.62x51 round would be a great squad weapon that can use current ammo stocks and retain NATO compatibility, especially if the sound suppressor was optional. .
I agree I dont see The M5 rifle going force wide with success but who knows
That "bad mag" issue where the bullet goes into the feed ramps, is actually an out-of-spec upper. The barrel breech extends beyond the receiver, making a shelf for the bullet tip to catch under.
Perhaps, but you must use the tan mags. They have a different feed lip angle. Solved our problems.
Now this is great info. Thanks!
In my experience, M193 outperforms M855 in terms of accuracy. Putting a bunch of different materials in a bullet doesn’t exactly improve consistency.
Thanks, great deep dive. The practical application is the most reliable source. Side by side with what we know gives a great testimony.
I was a small arms repairman and m855a1 killed barrels very quickly making them lose putting small dents in the back end of the barrel. But most of all it destroyed feed paws on SAWs like nobodies business
Nice video bro . Love these types of videos . I'm a small Arms geek for sure . Yeah I'd say that's some pretty bad ass shooting to get those groups at distance with M855 or M855A1 . Then again Colt SOCOMs can be insanely accurate. I know the 4 or 5 SOCOMs I own are definitely some good shooting barrels for being C.L.. Hell I used to use my Colt SOCOM that I chopped to 12.5" for 2Gun Matches because it was the most accurate barrel I owned at the time . This 5+ years ago .
I picked up 10 rounds of M855A1 couple years ago . I'll probably never shoot them because I was told it would blow up my Colt M4s lol. I got them to be cool . This was before CV and those suckers were still $3 a round lol..
I saw some where that Okay Ind / Surefeed is stopping production. Surefeeds and Pmags are literally all I use .
Questions ..
Didn't regular Army boycott Pmags in 2010ish time period . I remeber reading an article about it years ago online but never knew if it was actually true..
Yes, The Army didint allow Pmags to be sold on post I think for a short time, along with some other AR15 type items. I think it was a very brief period, never effected SF.
The image posted at ~22:38 where the nose of the round dug into the receiver appears to be a gun issue not a mag issue. You can clearly see the barrel extension is too far into the receiver. Appears to be an M4 notch/feed ramp on the barrel extension but hardly any M4 feedramp on the receiver. This is something you have to watch for when using M4 vs non M4 feed ramps on the receiver. That setup is literally asking for the rounds to cause issues there.
My understanding that is a magazine problem. That issue was supposedly fixed with a new follower design. They're baby blue if I remember correctly.
I'm an old Vietnam vet and wondering how much ammo do troops carry on a day patrol nowdays? We carried several
hundred rounds, but we stayed out in the bush for weeks and we didn't get reapplied everyday.
Well I carried 11 mags on me for multi-day Ops. After 2 days on ground in SF, we had it set up for air resupply, if teams needed it. This included ammo speed balls at least a fresh basic load of 7 mags per man. Plus there was always a on call emergency ammo resupply if there was a large firefight
I was an 0311 and went to afghan a few times (Helmand). Anyways riflemen had 180 rounds (6mags) and us saw(m249) gunners had between 600-800 linked 5.56.
The ammo change was some REMF’s OER bullets point for the year, did nothing to change lethality from my experience.
We switched the new “improved” round in 2010 towards end of our deployment. Saw no difference in terminal effect, only way we knocked anyone down with 556 was to hit CNS. Hips and heads were the only guarantee knock down we found, inside 100ish yards they tumbled and caused good effect. Past 300 you’re pissing in the wind, if you hit the guy they’d barely react , a through and through pin hole wound which would slow them down a bit but that’s it. We’d find blood trails and drag marks but find no bodies consistently, they were so doped up on pills they’d get away. Every time we got in a good fight we’d see multiple funerals for the next week, they’d police their brass and bodies throw them in wheelbarrows cover with grass leave the area. Our air support would report seeing an arm or leg dangling from the wheelbarrow but couldn’t get clearance to engage, they knew our ROE and would exploit them. We figured out real quick if we pinned them down with accurate fire and called in air/arty we had their asses, .50 and 40mm even had limited effect on the mud walls but made it easy for air to locate and eliminate them.
Never used the Navy 77gr load but, 9mm will punch through car doors at handgun range, 556 at close range has “predictable” deflection at the right shot angles.
Can’t give any info on its effectiveness against hard surfaces because I never encountered or tried them. If the enemy is wearing armor it’s time to shoot hips and heads anyhow and the most accurate round is what’s needed.
M118 from our dm rifles was much more effectIve at stopping fights, nearly 3x more bullet weight than 556 green tip.
You mentioned wheelbarrows for dead and wounded.
....I saw this first hand myself too
@@ModernTacticalShooting Yesr, most the guys we fought were disciplined enough to lay blankets down and police their brass and dead. We could always tell the foreigners from the locals. They would run 2 rpg gunners, a pkm, and couple flankers with ak. Just like I read about in Vietnam if they were running ak full auto you could just about stand up and walk to them. The pkm will put you behind cover quick, on rare occasions we’d encounter a dishka and that’s a scary sound for sure. If it was a locals they’d have an ak couple mags maybe a cellphone. Foreign fighters had serious ammo, maps/documents, phone and/or radio, actual kit. Weapons that were maintained and a bag full of pills. A guy who’s jacket up on anti depressant and a amphetamines will fight with no fear or feel pain. Locals would take a few shots and run off, our biggest headache was the kids with mini grenades. Bad guys would find 2-3 kids pay them to parallel us and toss a grenade over the wall. If we couldn’t roll them up quickly they’d drop/ditch them. They were smart enough to wait till pomegranates came into season before they got bold. It was nothing to see a kid with a bag them and a grenade in the bottom, if the kid drops his bag when you approach he’s riding dirty. It was always the 8-12yr olds they put up to it.
I'd like to watch one video from you that is not negative about anything related to our military or major firearms and ammo manufacturers. But still fun to watch.
Excellent info, thanks for the post!
Thanks Jeff, great research.
Jeff, outstanding review of the M885A1. My first experience with A1 was in 2013 in Afghanistan. Has anyone else witnessed corrosion and tip separation on the 855A1?
Well plenty of oxidation or corrosion, never saw it effect performance.
I used a ton of M855 in training and deployed, and a good amount of M855A1 from several different AR type rifles, and both failed to impress me in accuracy, esp. as compared to MK262 or those 75 grain Hornady rounds that were around for awhile (love those). Definitely NOT "match like" accuracy. I was issued the LWRC M6 at a place I worked OCONUS, and our ammunition supply process was unpredictable- you never knew what you may get when forward deployed, so sometimes we would get MK 262, sometimes green tip. We were specifically told not to use the M855A1 round through those M6 guns. I also told our leadership if that was the case to not put it on our resupply pallets if they didn't want it getting used. I have noticed getting consistent yaw with the 75 grain Hornady rounds on pigs and deer. And I have never seen a jacketed 5.56 round NOT go through a standard vehicle door. And even 40mm HE wouldn't penetrate a afghan mud wall, and that has an explosive charge in it. And there sure is lots of body armor in circulation now- not to mention armored vehicles (thanks brandon). I do like the M193 as a general purpose round- accurate enough, mild to shoot, not hard on steel. I think I'll stick with my PMAGS. I noticed on many of the M4's in my unit, they would still be grouping good, but would fail chamber erosion. I never saw a shot out M4 barrel that PASSED chamber erosion testing.
The majority of my ammo is M855 Green Tip. I have half as much in M193, and then 100 M855 A1 for good measure. If I ever have to engage (hopefully not) in any more combat shooting it would only be in CONUS as my military days are behind me. I think what I have is probably overkill for that sort of native soil scenario. I'm shooting out of a 16 inch AR with an LPVO and offset red dot. I've only shot it out to 100, and at that junior varsity distance it is sub MOA to MOA with all three types of ammo.
I think it'll do for my needs.
Great video!
my mk12 inspired clone has a 18 inch barrel and I have steel at 65 yards.. the m855 is stopped by the steel, the m193 zips right though like nothing
@@soup31314 My experience with the 16 inch at 100 yards matches yours.
3MOA at 100 is what even my most budget AR-15s(I'm talking del-ton, PSA, S&W builds) are capable of with standard 55gr plinking rounds.
Yeah the vast majority of ARS, even high-end ones in my experience are 1.5-3 moa with 55gr.
But my Colt 6920 and Geissele Super Duty are MOA/Sub-MOA with several different loads
Most "plinking ammo" isn't loaded nearly as consistently and for the most part is 2-3 MOA ammo
Great video as always!
Just curious, where does lead come from? And why does it offend so many people to put it back in the ground?
FWIW, I bought a box of green tip M855 and fired it at 100 yards from my AR-15 with a 20" bbl and 1in8 twist, which is quite accurate with handloads. My handloads of 52 grain match bullets generally shoot a bit less than 1" for 10 rounds on a good day. The green tip however was more like 2" for 5 round groups (limited ammo supply). Green tip velocity was about 3250 fps, 150 fps faster than my handloads.
Do you have any experience using M955 black tip? The tungsten steel tipped rounds
Would love to hear your thoughts on that
Just comparing it to M855A1on steel, they perform the same it seems.
Great video and great insight.
I carried a Mk18 with 77 gr mk262, got a hold of the M855A1 after arrival in Camp Brown and before moving to TK and other VSO camps between Cobra and TK. There was no noticeable shift from the zero I had with mk262 at 100 meters and could use the same holds all the way up to 400 meters to hit an ammo can. I say it was pretty accurate compared to M855 and decent compared to mk262.
VSO...Horrible idea
@@ModernTacticalShooting lucky for me, I was just delivering and installing new equipment, showing the snipers how it worked and moving on. The VSO was not an easy mission for sure.
Thanks for the great videos !
For a general purpose ball ammo it’s great stuff.
Big Army needed a more environmentally friendly round.
They got their more environmentally friendly round but the guys pulling the trigger got something that’s more accurate and that is more lethal.
Johnny’s reloading bench has an entire series based around the accuracy of m855a1 rounds
i follow him great info!!
20:46 FYI those strikes aren't below the feed ramps....the infamous M4 feed ramps were scallops (ramps) that cut into the receiver itself to extend the ramp from the barrel extension. These extended ramps are obviously softer aluminum so that's why the steel tipped A1 was chewing them up. I do agree tho it was mostly magazine issues
That DIY high cut at 18:27 is a thing of beauty.
Gotta buddy who tested weapons at FN. They started failing mil requirements for barrel life once they started tests with the m855a1.
Take it for what it's worth, but the anecdotal evidence of several thousand weapons tested gave around a 35-40% decrease in barrel life.
I personally have no use for it. Especially since the accuracy (in my shooting group) will be neglible on man sized targets and I'm not willing to sacrifice my barrels since I buy them.
The tan mags did make it to unit issue, my BN got sent to Germany in march and we got 500+ of them, I tried to get them to order Pmags but they didn't like listening to a E4 armorer
Very informative video. Your ammo assessment is spot on, except your take on 5.45x39. The consistent tumble effect through soft tissue came from the Russian incorporating a hollow cavity right behind the tip of the bullet. When it hit soft tissue it deformed the tip, forcing a tumble. The early AR15's had a 1 and 12 twist which barely stablized the bullet which was used to create the tumble effect. Lastly, people seem to forget about how important the barrel is. Accuracy comes from the barrel and ammo being harmonically tuned to one and other. You can have two identical barrels, produced back to back right off the line, but their harmonic nodes will be completely different.
M193 is short, base heavy, and has a particular ogive that facilitates yawing. Combined with the cannelure being right at the typical break point, it has always been our best killer on soft targets.
I thank you for this video and the fact that you have real life experience with it and chose not to use it tells me a lot. And thank you for your service.
I was an Instructor/Writer at Benning when this stuff was being tested at AMU. The retired General who was one of the project managers sold it like a used car.
Reading the claims alone I didn’t need him hard selling it to know the truth.
My experience over the past 10 or so years with it is it's no more accurate than the old green tip. Does is go through car doors well, yes however so did the old stuff. It's just ball ammo with spiffy marketing nothing more nothing less.
For getting through the Kalat walls we found "pick and hammer"(.50 & 40mm) was the best way to get through it if you weren't running tow-2 BB.
That's nonsense. M855 was terrible on ballistics gel and M855A1 was amazing.
If anyone misses with M855A1, you're either using the wrong barrel twist or you can't shoot.
Considering that M855A1 is 62 grains, which means it wants a 1/9 barrel twist......
@@Seth9809 I have great accuracy with 62gr 5.56 and .223 out of 1:7 barrel. 55gr mil-spec ammo shoots 1”-1 ¼”, 55gr varmint ammo(Hornady, Sierra) shoots 1” or a tad less. I have noticed that .223 tends to have better accuracy, as long as I stay 55gr or heavier. I just got some 73gr loads to try.
Thanks a ton for the info. Have come to truely enjoy ur channel.
Glad to see they appear to have overcome the accuracy and "component separation" problems experienced during development.
I've learned 3x more from the comments than from the video. Right on lads
Great vid!!!
m855a1 is all I use now. it's an incredible round.
The accuracy test seemed incomplete in my opinion, having less strings of fire for the M855 and giving what was admitted a data outlier a hugely weighted impact on the average. It looked to me that with more strings you'd be seeing an average of one MOA improvement in accuracy for the M855A1, from about 3 MOA to about 2 MOA. I'd take that improvement any time.
Just like yourself, I'd like to see some more standardized testing instead of the mystical verbiage of "match-like accuracy" and a few anecdotes from the army.
Yes my intent with the video is just to address the Army's "match like" statement I know my testing incomplete. But shooting it for years when I was in, it never impressed me with its accuracy over M855
@@ModernTacticalShooting fair enough, brother. Thanks for the video!
I know some snipers early on when they had to use green tip would remove the paint just to make them a little more consistent and eek out a little bit better performance
Thanks
At 27:38 you say that (5.56x45mm) M855 A1 is going to be replaced in 2024 by the 6.8 ARC. Did you mean to say that? I am aware that Hornady has introduce the 6mm ARC and I am aware that as part of the NSGW (XM-5) introductions that those weapons will get a new cartridge called 6.8 x 51mm which SIG appears to have named the 277 SIG Fury. I do not know what the US military is going to call the 6.8 x 51 mm.
Love your knowledge on this bullet! But one goal WAS met: Lead free.
I think they should have taken either a 6 ARC or 6.5 Grendel and added about a millimeter to the case length and bumped up the pressure a bit and called it a day. Then make a nice lead bullet with a hardened steel tip and a special version with a coated tungsten tip for when they need improved penetration. Make the regular one with a green or blue tip and the special one with a red tip.
The target range is already permanently full of lead. Lead comes in different forms and some forms are more dangerous than others. The regular metal like with bullets is not even that bad. You're not getting lead poisoning walking around a shooting range. Unless you want to get down there and lick the ground. It's the liquid form of lead that is really dangerous. Lead has the weight that you need for kinetic energy.
Just make a new upper that they can slap onto the original M4 and M16 lowers with a VLTOR A5 buffer assembly. They didn't need to spend this much time and money to improve performance. The government likes to make things way too complicated and expensive.
If they had a little extra money to spend they could have upgraded the trigger to a geissele G2S trigger or even just an ALG ACT trigger. I think the guys would have been perfectly happy with this setup and it would have been easier to handle the recoil than the monster that they made.
I have a "20" Grendel with a rifle buffer and you can't tell the difference from 5.56 and if it were 10% more powerful, it would still be easy to shoot.
Great video, thanks
Started to see these in regular infantry in 2013. Me and a buddy put a lvl 3 steel plate at 25 and hit it with the epr rounds and it Swiss cheesed the plate. Went through and kept going.
Edit: this was 2013 in Afghanistan not state side
Depends on the steel. Not all steel is the same. Fact is, there's a very wide variety out there. We've shot M855 and M855A1 on the same AR500 steel targets at the same ranges and it's a world of difference. Just like Jeff showed in his video.
The first PMAGs would brake when dropped on concrete loaded. They improved after 2004
Really enjoy your channel.
Including this video.
Thank you sir.
With the longer barrel gas port, and the correct magazine feed angle, it runs well. With a short barrel gas tube, it's a big too much pressure. And with the wrong feed angle, the exposed steel tip will chew up an aluminum feed ramp. So your results will vary depending on the specific rifle & magazine.
It's largely a solid copper hollowpoint stuck onto the back of a steel penetrator. Excellent penetration, excellent wound characteristics, and the hot powder charge squeezes the most out of 5.56. It's extra impressive when using with a 16 or 20 inch barrel, instead of 14.5 in the military's m4 carbine.
M193 is very good, especially with a 16", or better, a 20" barrel. In closer ranges, the tumbling it tends to do is just "messy" in all the ways you'd want a military gun to be messy.
M855 has good barrier-agnostic trajectory. It doesn't deflect off glass & such very easily. But it's terminal performance is abysmal. When you combine M855 with a 14.5" barrel (which costs velocity), it's not hard to see why the 5.56 got some unfavorable reviews in terminal performance. Also, it's lower velocity (both from projectile weight, and it's typical use in shorter barrels) means it actually doesn't penetrate hard objects any better. Actually it's penetration is worse than M193.
M855A1 has the barrier-agnostic trajectory. But the hot powder charge gets the velocity back up, so it penetrates as well as M193 on hard barriers. The terminal performance is very good, doesn't tumble as well as M193, but the exposed steel tip seated in a copper cup opens up in soft tissue like a ballistic-tip, making a big hole. The fact that M855A1 tears up training hardware, actually speaks well of it's terminal performance. Get better training hardware. It's an excellent bullet design. It being "green" is entirely beside the point of it. Accuracy... some of them have the steel penetrator "loose" in the projectile (you can spin the top). On the specific projectiles that have loose steel tips, spin stabilization and general accuracy suffers. If you go through them and separate out the loose tipped cartridges, the remainder are fairly accurate. Ideally the military should specify this as a standard for accepting ammo, but the ordinance department is pretty much a blind dog looking for bones. M855A1 _can_ be _very_ accurate.
Use M193 or M855A1 (make sure you have a long tube, and the right magazine for M855A1 though).
Avoid M855 like the plague, it makes petite holes, and doesn't penetrate as well as M193 even. Target practice only.
Also, going down to 14.5" (or even less) is ill advised no matter what cartridge is used. CQB length is nice, but not if it's gimping your terminal performance significantly and increasing your muzzle flash quite a bit (or tearing up a can more rapidly) at the same time.
Side Note: 5.45mmR military ammo actually has a copper plated steel jacket (the copper protects the rifling). Inside that, it uses a very soft lead, and has a tiny air gap at the tip. On impact, the soft lead rushes forward, and the air pocket gets compressed into a "bubble" of air, in a filled tip. The odds of this bubble being perfectly centered is near zero. The steel jacket is strong enough to prevent deformation. The result is that on impact, the bullet becomes unbalanced (due to an off-center air pocket inclusion), and will tumble (immediately, and violently). It works very well, but only with the mil-spec russian ammo which has this design. Aftermarket 5.45 examples with regular FMJ construction do not have the velocity to bend & tumble significantly.
In M193, the tumbling is more caused by the bullet's velocity, and it becoming bent on impact. It's not caused by spin-induced yaw. Actually it tumbles better with less spin (1in12 ideally, but definitely not more than 1in9). It will tumble through the target, or tumble 90 degrees, and then break in half making 2 wound channels.
Both are drastically more traumatic than M855, which is stable, robust, a bit slow, and almost never tumbles. Accurate, yes. But not traumatic. M855 makes a 22 caliber hole with a small halo of supersonic hydrostatic trauma. It doesn't impart all that much energy within the target medium, and is not very effective (unless the small hole is critically placed).
Nothing (shot out of a rifle) penetrates afghan walls. Not even close. I don't think it's even something to bring up in rifle performance. As far as penetrating chest plates... no, the M855A1 doesn't penetrate them. But neither does any other 5.56, nor the new 6.8mm. Chest plates are pretty hard.
I never saw damaged feedramps but did see a unusually high amount of bolt failures mostly with M4s that haven't received the A1 upgrades.
Still seeing M-4A1 locking lugs break
"Yep! We also just spent millions more on a new platform with an even more expensive bullet to make up for it!"
Glad to hear you reinforce my mk262 bias.
100%
If you're gonna choose a Duty load I would make a suggestion.
Get BONDED SOFT POINTS my dude. Federal TBBC or Speer Gold Dots ECT. I personally went with 62gr so they share virtually identical POI as my training ammo (PMC XTAC).
Altho I have been quite impressed with the AAC 77gr OTMs, at $10.99/box on sale I've acquired Almost 6k of em lol and have found them to shoot very well (around 1-1.5MOA averaged) out of my 2 uppers (A 16" Colt 6920 and a Geissele Super Duty 14.5) for the price it's all I buy anymore.
But as far as duty ammo is concerned, I've found Bonded Soft Points to be the Pinnacle of performance across the board IF selecting ammo that isn't going to penetrate armour ANYWAYS. they certainly have the best performance against common urban barriers especially such as auto glass, walls, door panels ECT while still giving excellent terminal performance across the board both with and without barriers in the mix.
We aren't in Afghanistan we don't have to worry about mud walls, what we have to worry about most is other common barriers here stateside such as sheetrock, furniture, vehicles and tempered auto glass, ECT.
@mrdark9916 I've since stocked a fair bit of TBBC. I've also stacked a bunch of 70gr TSX and that's been my go to since it and mk262 uses roughly the same zero in my rigs. I have a dedicated rig for tbbc and other lighter weight loads.
@@Appalachia_Ape that's actually a very good point, and something I always tell people to try to do. Pick a good load, that shares a POI with your training ammo as closely as possible.
Luckily through my 14.5 Geissele upper that's dialed for my BSPs my 55 and 62gr XTAC training ammo share virtually identical, but the AAC 77s ALSO literally overlap impact zone. They still land dead center only mabey ¼ to the right, and only about .75moa higher at 100yds so for all intents and purposes I can swap freely between them if need be. As I have so many of them stocked now.
But the 77s are mainly designated for my old Colt upper since I built it out more like an SPR. it's not nearly as accurate with as many loads as the Geissele upper, but with those AAC 77s it's about 1-1.5MOA so it lives on them now. Bigger 2-10 optic with more data, more for longer pokes on "unsuspecting targets" with increased first round hit probability, but that doesn't completely abandon the ability to do closer work if the situation forces it on me, so it has an offset red dot as well to solve those problems. And also to serve as an "overwatch rifle" for the family property. Up on the hill surrounding the property I can see every field and road leading up to our land out to about 600yds so that played a role on the selection as well. We have a few 762 AR10s in the family available but I like the option for 556 in that role logistically as well.
The Geissele is built out more "do it all" with a 1-6 and Offset red dot. Something I can use more general purpose but still make effective hits to 500 if need be, but favoring more inside short-mid range faster shooting where barriers are potentially more of an issue and a little more meneuverability, without completely abandoning the ballistics I want.
To me 14.5 is the shortest I'll go with 556. I've actually considered many times selling my 16-inch Colt upper and swapping it for an 18 or 20inch upper to lock in the "SPR role" for that setup. But I've never been able to bring myself to do it... I love that upper so much lol it was my first and I've had it for years. And I just don't need a 3rd personally I have other stuff I am trying to save and acquire so the 16 will have to work for the role.
If only I was a bajillionare....... 😂 Right now I'm saving for a thermal unit. Still researching but something that can be handheld or a clip-on for my rifles. That's my next big force multiplier
@@Appalachia_Ape I do really like the 70gr TSX loads, they fuck. They just tend to sheer petals and lose some weight and expansion against barriers like auto glass ECT but still a solid option. But if there's nothing between that bullet and the target, they fuuuuck lol 😂 I know a couple ppl who use em for deer they are a solid well rounded performer. I mostly just use the extensive FBI testing and what LE/federal agencies are using and why and then try to balance performance and price as best as possible. All ya can do really
Great video. Would like to see u talk about the URGI upper. I think it was issued after u were already out tho. Thanks Jeff.
What about other manufacturer's M855? I've got Danish M855 from their AMA (NATO spec) plant. The first two rounds out of my 20" match grade barrel (Old school, no muzzle break/flash hider, just concave shape at the muzzle) are going through the same hole at 100 yards. For me, it appears to shoot like match grade.
Need more than two rounds, even the 5 rounds I shot not enough to truly judge MOA need 10 shot groups
In Army BCT in 2001 we fired at either a 400 or 500 familiarization range that had a pit where half the platoon would lower and raise the targets with grouping markers. With an m16a2 and iron sights there were several of us that could get groupings like that on man size targets. I get it the m4 is shorter but I think it could definitely be done with an ACOG. I can also tell you that an ACOG is precise because I won a bet to shred one of those little glow sticks at night, that went in the tripower, without any issue. Two shots were allowed and I hit it twice. It was significantly smaller the second time. With the mass issue of red dots shooting fundamentals took a hit. Red dots and holo optics have clear advantages but I am a big fan of still learning with irons first. Unfortunately, those training hours are hard to come by.
Training is key!
5:22 Isn't 1.8in@200 yards expecting sub-MOA accuracy?
I don't know why they don't take the new SIG case technology with the steel bottom and the brass case and apply it to the 5.56x45 essentially raising the pressure's and maybe using a heavier projectile to achieve faster fps and longer range I would hope.. Just saying
Thanks Jeff.
I’m so happy this isn’t one of those channels with silly gimmicks, stupid expressions, unnecessary hyperbole and horrific “comedy”.
I work in US Army Range Control.
Yes the EPR round is excessively lethal. We have to redesign our shoot houses due to it punching thru AR-500 steel.
It’s Range Operations now!!!!
I’ve been told on the radio.
I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on the new 6.8x51 round even though you probably never used it.
There is a link to a video on my thoughts about 6.8 in the description
@@ModernTacticalShooting You mirrored my thoughts on it from my security job days overseas. Logistics was the other issue. At least in the private sector.
was it worth 100 million dollars to the military? No.
what was it worth 100 million of the US federal budget to keep a factory open in a congressional district and that individual elected to congress every single time? absolutely.
Lol we spent a million dollars in one day swapping out APR-39 signal processors that kept frying due to a short. That was for ONE single SOF helicopter. 100 mil in DoD bux is small potatoes. The enormity of DoD spending is only realized in places like Aircraft mx, Space operations and DARPA.
I have great groups results using m855. not sure where the bad accuracy rumors came from unless its shooter error or a faux m855 manufacturing process. thanks for the cool vid.
During the Surge period in Iraq I remember reading the reports that the Army was accepting M855 batches that failed the accuracy specs due to the need. Maybe it was a bigger issue when massed production had to double-time it.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD sounds very possible. crank em out. QC goes down.
The best consistent accuracy I've ever had was about 1.5MOA. I've shot a small handful of sub-MOA groups, but those aren't normal.
M855 was never designed to be accurate. It's not a myth that it's not very good, it's by design.
Its worth noting... the "green bullet" wasnt just about the environment. It was also about logistics, independence, and national security.
When this program started, there was only one lead refinery in the US. That refinery not doing well financially, and everybody saw the writing on the wall. The environment was a good political story. But this was done so we wouldn't have to rely on foreign powers, should our last lead refinery go under. And it did.