DO WANT: Army Begins Shipping Improved 5.56mm Cartridge

[G27]

Army Begins Shipping Improved 5.56mm Cartridge, Soldiers in Afghanistan To Use "Green" Round This Summer | Before It's News

The M855A1 resulted in a number of significant enhancements not found in the current round, officials said. They explained these include improved hard-target capability, more dependable, consistent performance at all distances, improved accuracy, reduced muzzle flash and a higher velocity.

During testing, the M855A1 performed better than current 7.62mm ball ammunition against certain types of targets, blurring the performance differences that previously separated the two rounds.

[LagerHead]

Ooooooh baby. I want to see new comparisons against the 6.8 as well, but that does peak my interest.

[mikegideon]

If they keep going, the 6.8 may wind up all the way out of the game. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Good thing its environmentally friendly, though. I'd hate to shoot someone and pollute the earth. Maybe they can make them out of tree seeds so that the blood of every person that is killed will help grow a tree.

Sounds like a good advertisement. I hope it performs as stated and that its available on the civilian market for us to try.

[Guest Fuernis]

They can scream Improvement all they want, I want to see ballistic specs. I also what to hear first hand that you are going to be able to drop on the first round.

[Guest Keinengel]

Not to mention that with the military's incredibly cheap budget, they probably won't be giving much of it out.

[Garufa]

I'm curious to see what this new .22 will do.

[Daniel]

Good thing its environmentally friendly, though. I'd hate to shoot someone and pollute the earth. Maybe they can make them out of tree seeds so that the blood of every person that is killed will help grow a tree.

Sounds like a good advertisement. I hope it performs as stated and that its available on the civilian market for us to try.

The Army fires Thousands of rounds. A day.

They spend millions on cleaning ranges.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Daniel

[Dolomite_supafly]

The new round was made of a bismuth-tin alloy with a steel penetrator. Army officials said the M855A1 provided more “consistent performance†than the M855 round and performed better against barriers such as wind- shields and car doors.

At 62 grains, they weigh about the same as most NATO rounds, have a typical lead core with a solid copper shank and are considered a variation of Federal Cartridge Co.’s Federal Trophy Bonded Bear Claw round, which was developed for big-game hunting and is touted in a company news release for its ability to crush bone.

The Army has spent about $32 million on the LFS program since fiscal 2007.

Dolomite

[USMCJG]

The Army fires Thousands of rounds. A day.

They spend millions on cleaning ranges.

It's scary to think of all of that lead making its way into the ground. You know, the ground it came out of.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The tree huggers are fighting wars? Green bullets, they're more worried about the

mother earth than the soldier firing them. That article didn't get into any great detail.

As far as the 6.8 round goes, the round itself is confused. Call it a 6.8 SPC, 6.8x43

6.8 Rem, 6.8 Nato(not quite yet). I doubt the 6.8 will get much more consideration

than it has already gotten. Law enforcement may end up with more than the military.

When I bought mine, I never assumed the military would really go for a good idea like

the 6.8. Too bad, because it is a fine round.

Edited June 29, 2010 by 6.8 AR
add

[Guest SUNTZU]

The Army fires Thousands of rounds. A day.

They spend millions on cleaning ranges.

Uh...thanks?

[Daniel]

You act like trying to be a little more responsible is a bad thing.

[Guest SUNTZU]

You act like trying to be a little more responsible is a bad thing.

Because its still not environmentally friendly? Its been expensive to develop. It will be expensive to produce, since its a .gov contract, it is inherently expensive. And it still has lead in it. Big ****ing deal. Its not environmentally sound since they will have to have machine that make machines to make the rounds. The old machines are either junk or making more of the same rounds. *gasp* "BUT THE CARBON FOOTPRINT!!!" And you and I are still going to be busting our asses to pay for this ****. Try not to trip as you look down your nose.

Slide Show

M855A1

The last comment on why they were developing this round is the biggest concern....cost....it cost big bucks for someone's "green" company to come in and get rid of all your dirty dirtiness. I wonder who owns those "green" industries? Its about money, not being a good steward.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

M855A1 is the Army’s second attempt to produce a lead-free bullet based on concerns of lead pollution on military ranges. Recent tests concluded that the multi piece bullet was susceptible to heat damage, when stored in vehicles, and then subsequently fired in the rifle. Tests conducted with Doppler radar revealed a failure rate above 5%, where the round did not impact anywhere near the target. This effort has wasted over 20 million dollars in research and is the second failure of this design concept. There is no evidence that lead from bullets contributes to ground contamination. There is however, proof that the lead in the primers used for the cartridges is highly toxic, though the so-called “green ammunition” still contains lead primers. Engineers have not been able to develop a lead free primer that is as stable as lead based primers.

Imagine that. ^^^

Edited June 29, 2010 by SUNTZU

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So, what's being responsible about having a green bullet? All the lead deposited in the ground from WWI, WWII, Korea, etc, has been shown to cause an increase in lead poisoning where?

It's a politically correct bullet. Does it kill any better? Its job is to kill, not be politically correct, which, by the way, is unconstitutional. FYI

[323ssplt]

Here's an even better article......

BTW the Marine Corps is going to a BETTER Round...FYI

Army won’t field deadlier Corps round - Army News, news from Iraq, - Army Times

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The Marines don't care about "Green Bullets". They want the job to get done.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Daniel, sorry for being an ass. I DO believe in being a good steward. The only caveat to that is most of the "the sky is falling and we're all going to die if we don't do X" is about making money or passing legislation to control you and I. THAT...I have a problem with.

[towerclimber37]

1. the lead and copper used on ranges will always have to be cleaned up. No matter WHAT is used as a projectile, it will have to be cleaned up.

2. as far as I know, people were up in arms about the Army using depleted uranium rounds in their 25 and 30mm cannons. Don't hear much about that anymore, even though it's still used.

3. If someone is saying "this HAS to be done" there's a reason behind it and you can bet there's some sort of money scheme behind it.

Show me the ballistics on this "new" round.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Also, if the ballistics are better, what is that going to do to the stadia in the ACOG and other scopes?

[Mark A]

Why can't the army use the new round for training purposes and the SOST round for combat? Seems like the best overall answer to me.

Mark

[kb4ns]

Why can't the army use the new round for training purposes and the SOST round for combat? Seems like the best overall answer to me.

Mark

That makes sense, doesn't it? Unfortunately, the government rarely does anything that makes sense...

[Dolomite_supafly]

Also, if the ballistics are better, what is that going to do to the stadia in the ACOG and other scopes?

Even if the ballistics are better I do not believe that they are going to be so much better that it renders current ACOG's obsolete. The differences in elevations of Afghanistan are going to cause more problems than a round that is a bit better ballistically. It is the same weight so it would have to more than likely be going faster to be ballistically superior in my eyes. Also, when they were looking for ballistically superior rounds I believe they are for better performance on hard targets more so than long range accuracy.

Here are a few quick numbers through JBM calculations comparing differences between elevation and velocity changes.

With a 25 yard zero, a velocity of 2900 FPS, using the ballistic coefficient of .234 which the M855 round that has:

At 600 yards M855 drops roughly 86" when the elevation is 500 feet above sea level. Now at 6000 feet the round drops roughly 73", 13" less. I have been in areas over there where the elevation was close to 8000 feet and at that range the round drops 70", 16" less. All calculations are exactly the same except the elevation. So going from 500 feet above sea level to 8000 feet reduces the drop by 16" making the bullet strike 16" higher than at 500 feet above sea level. Think about it a shot aimed at center chest at 8000 foot elevation is going to more than likely fly over the head of the bad guy at at 600 yards if the gun was zeroed at 500 foot elevation.

If I increase the velocity to 3000 FPS changes the drop is 77" at the same 600 yards with an elevation of 500 feet. Jump to 6000 feet of elevation and the drop is 66", 11" less. At 8000 feet elevation it is 63" of drop at 600 yards giving 14" less.

The difference between the two when compaing only the velocities at 8000 feet above sea level is only 7", meaning a shot aimed at the center of the chest will not over shoot the target. This is the reason I believe any added velocity will have less of an effect than enviromental changes most soldiers will encounter. We are not even taking into account humidity, pressure levels or temperature which all have an effect on ballistics.

The stadia lines on an ACOG might be calibrated for a certain round but enviromental conditions create more problems with the calibrated scope than an increase in velocity. The ACOG is designed to be minute of bad guy and it does this well. It will also shoot minute of bad guy just as easily with the new round just as it did with the old round. It is the envirometal factors that will cause problems.

Dolomite

[Guest SUNTZU]

Even if the ballistics are better I do not believe that they are going to be so much better that it renders current ACOG's obsolete. The differences in elevations of Afghanistan are going to cause more problems than a round that is a bit better ballistically. It is the same weight so it would have to more than likely be going faster to be ballistically superior in my eyes. Also, when they were looking for ballistically superior rounds I believe they are for better performance on hard targets more so than long range accuracy.

Here are a few quick numbers through JBM calculations comparing differences between elevation and velocity changes.

With a 25 yard zero, a velocity of 2900 FPS, using the ballistic coefficient of .234 which the M855 round that has:

At 600 yards M855 drops roughly 86" when the elevation is 500 feet above sea level. Now at 6000 feet the round drops roughly 73", 13" less. I have been in areas over there where the elevation was close to 8000 feet and at that range the round drops 70", 16" less. All calculations are exactly the same except the elevation. So going from 500 feet above sea level to 8000 feet reduces the drop by 16" making the bullet strike 16" higher than at 500 feet above sea level. Think about it a shot aimed at center chest at 8000 foot elevation is going to more than likely fly over the head of the bad guy at at 600 yards if the gun was zeroed at 500 foot elevation.

If I increase the velocity to 3000 FPS changes the drop is 77" at the same 600 yards with an elevation of 500 feet. Jump to 6000 feet of elevation and the drop is 66", 11" less. At 8000 feet elevation it is 63" of drop at 600 yards giving 14" less.

The difference between the two when compaing only the velocities at 8000 feet above sea level is only 7", meaning a shot aimed at the center of the chest will not over shoot the target. This is the reason I believe any added velocity will have less of an effect than enviromental changes most soldiers will encounter. We are not even taking into account humidity, pressure levels or temperature which all have an effect on ballistics.

The stadia lines on an ACOG might be calibrated for a certain round but enviromental conditions create more problems with the calibrated scope than an increase in velocity. The ACOG is designed to be minute of bad guy and it does this well. It will also shoot minute of bad guy just as easily with the new round just as it did with the old round. It is the envirometal factors that will cause problems.

Dolomite

Thanks for the cogent response!

[Guest HvyMtl]

How long do you think it will take before some of this ammo pops up for sale as Mil Surp?