U.S. Army Issues New M855A1 Ammo to Troops in Afghanistan
The U.S. Army has begun shipping its new, improved 5.56×45 cartridge, the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round, to U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The Army will procure over 200 million rounds of the new M855A1 ammo in the next 12-15 months, and soldiers in Afghanistan will begin using M855A1 ammo in the summer of 2010. The new round replaces the current M855 cartridge used by U.S. troops since the early 1980s.
The military sought to replace current M855 ammo because M855 has not performed adequately in the Afghan theater. Specific complaints include: 1) inability to effectively penetrate vehicle windshields; 2) poor long-range performance; and 3) failure to fragment even in short-range anti-personnel use. The Army’s Picatinny Arsenal claims that the new M855A1 has improved hard target capability, more consistent performance at all distances, improved accuracy, reduced muzzle flash, and higher velocity. M855A1 ammo is tailored for use in M4 carbines but should also give enhanced performance in M16s and M249s.
New Steel-Tip Bullet Design
The 62-grain bullet for the new M855A1 ammo is a completely new design. While it may appear to have a plastic “ballistic tip”, that’s deceiving. The new bullet created for M855A1 ammo has a bismuth-tin alloy core with a steel “stacked-cone” penetrating tip. The photo at right shows the version from last year; the final production version may be slightly different (e.g. the final version tip is a different color). Apparently the latest bullet design is a winner. During testing, M855A1 ammo performed better than current 7.62mm ball ammunition against certain types of targets. According to Lt. Col. Jeffrey K. Woods, the program’s product manager, the new M855A1 ammo is “the best general purpose 5.56mm round ever produced. A true general purpose round, the M855A1 exceeds the performance of the current M855 against the many different types of targets likely to be encountered in combat.” The chart below illustrates how M855A1 ammo performs on hard targets compared to M855.
Over One Million Rounds Fired in Army Tests
Prior to initial production, the new M855A1 round underwent vigorous testing. Official qualification of the round consisted of a series of side-by-side tests with the current M855. Overall, the Army fired more than one million rounds to ensure the new cartridge met all expectations. The new M855A1 round is the “most thoroughly tested small caliber round ever fielded” according to Lt. Col. Woods. The new M855A1 is sometimes called “Green Ammo” because it uses a lead-free projectile. Woods said the M855A1’s bullet design shows how “greening” a previously hazardous material can also provide extremely beneficial performance improvements.
Similar Posts:
- U.S. Army Places Huge Order for New M855A1 Ammo
- Army Issues Solicitation for XM17 Pistol to Replace Beretta M9
- Velocity Per Inch in .223 Rem — Barrel Cut-Down Test Results
- .223 Rem Barrel Cut-Down Test — Velocity Loss by the Inch
- .223 Rem Velocity Per Inch Revealed by Barrel Cut-Down Test
Share the post "U.S. Army Issues New M855A1 Ammo to Troops in Afghanistan"
Tags: Afghanistan, ammo, Ammunition, M855, M855A1, Picatinny
I wonder what sort of powder they are using to maintain the same or better velocities? From the looks of it, the longer bullet seems to protrude into the case way past the base of the shoulder, to at least to about where the annealing ends.
I wonder if the BC is improved as well, it certainly looks longer. That alone would justify the switch. I note that the cannelure is just forward of the penetrator/lead core, which should facilitate it’s fragmentation properties quite well. Did the Army do any terminal ballistic tests? Shooting through metal is all well and good, but will it kill bad guys?
In any event, it seems highly improbable that the US could possibly develop a worse round than the standard M855 using the SS109. We can only go up from there.
The overheating issues probably were at extremes. I doubt the army only tested the round to 120 degrees. Terminal ballistics can’t be tested. It can only be theorized. A round soft enough and slow enough to stop inside a target at a short distance has no penetration capabilities when armor or a barrier is used. A round that has high penetration of barriers goes right through a soft target, being less likely to inflict maximum tissue damage. Its all a balancing act. Steel is lighter than led, needing less propellant to reach the same velocities as well. By the looks of it BC is improved, its a flatter flying design more associated with long range wild cats.
Typical ammunition and propellant temperature testing maximum range is -65F to +145F.
Terminal ballistics can in fact be tested in standardized soft tissue simulant known as ballistic gelatin where the permanent crush cavity can be determined for different ranges and or velocities and for different projectiles (i.e., 5.56mm vs 7.62mm) where relative comparisons can be made. This simulates the probable range of soft tissue damage for various systems and conditions of yaw or fragmentation.
The projectile in question, the M855A1, has the same weight as the M855 (62 grains) and thus has the same sectional density and most probably the same or very similar BC, as simply being longer without increasing the sectional density will not in and of itself result in a higher BC. In fact being longer while maintaining the same sectional density usually results in a slightly lower BC due to the increased skin drag of a greater ballistic surface area.
Look at us… This is proof that we are the best fighting force out there. We are highly educated in our weaponry and demonstrate this through our discussions. I am almost certain the designers thought about every angle, BC, internal ballistics, external ballistics and terminal ballistics. Or at least I hope they did. But did they consider the scrutiny and potential criticism?
M855, green tip, SS109 is an amazing and nasty round. How can we actually get any better with a .22 caliber bullet? With more penetration? With more fragmentation? Better BC? More kinetic energy? Terminal Ballistics?
Your right about the powder Mike. But, I think there is still a little room using the standard Hodgdon H335 propellant with 24 grains. Even if they add more propellent in order to push this longer bullet. But that will probably be as far as we can push this small case.
So the bullet is definitely longer. It will create more drag during it’s journey through the bore and flight towards it’s target. How much propellant are they using? Did they switch propellant? How can the BC actually be the same? I can see the BC being close, hopefully so that all the optics and designated marksman data will be effective. i.e. the ACOG’s Bullet Drop Compensating data already installed on the optics. With a lower SD, am I expecting the round to loose excessive velocities so that hitting a 600m is impossible now? The SS109 could easily hit 600m targets with iron sights and a little training for any soldier. This is a huge question for me. I enjoy the fact our weapons are more accurate than our enemies. Does the boat tail on this new projectile appear to have a more defined angle than the standard M855, or is it just me?
Do the 3 complaints in this article just seem a little stretched.
1)unable to penetrate a windshield? WTF? who ever wrote this is smoking something. At 100m we punched through 1/4″ steel targets all day. Not every round, but the majority. It’s a god damn .22cal what do you expect out of the penetration? But don’t say it can not penetrate a F#@$%ing window. If anything M855 over penetrates most of it’s targets, especially at close range.
2)Poor long range performance? Like I said earlier. 600m easily with iron sights and little training. Of course it has no energy once it’s there, it will make it. This is an M4, not a M24 shooting M118LR. If anything did they thing about an open tip for better BC? i can’t tell from this pic.
3)Failure to fragment? The Hague Convention of 1899 clearly prohibits the use of hollow point or expanding bullets in war between the countries which signed that agreement. Plus what good would a bullet be for penetration if it fragmented on impact? I don’t even want to start this argument. Yes, bullets yaw and sometimes they also break along the canellure. But what the hell is this article trying to say?
It’s like this guy want’s a .22cal bullet to penetrate a bunker at 1,200m and explode on impact!
I hope this lead-free bullet wasn’t forced into production based on an environmentally friendly projectile. That would be a mistake. I also hope they didn’t push it on soldiers in theater in order to get better data.
Lets keep the Department of Defense on there toes. Question every piece of equipment and always offer some kind of advice. How else will continue to be at the fore front.
SSG USArmy is right on in many respects.
I have numerous friends in the Defense Industry, and this amazing new propellant in use here was designed right here in Minnesota.
Over the past decade, ATK has been working 24 hours a day on the 5.56mm and 7.62 NATO cartridges in order to dramatically increase their performance in the field.
SSG is right – the author is definitely smoking something! Either that, or like most authors – they’re clueless on many of the subjects in which they’re writing.
The current M855 projectile can easily penetrate windows. What I believe he was trying to state was that the M855 projectile cannot retain its original ballistic flight path after penetrating a vehicle windshield. The round’s flight path is slightly deflected due to the angular surface of a windshield.
Part of the improved ‘barrier’ performance isn’t necessarily its ABILITY to penetrate various media, but its ability to retain a largely un-altered flight path after having penetrated glass, steel, and concrete hard surfaces, and continue to inflict damage upon its intended target (such as the head of a vehicle’s driver).
ATK has recently come up with a revolutionary new propellant after researching for decades to find a way to improve performance of 5.56 NATO ammunition in shorter 14.5″ barrel weapons. It’s the culmination of MILLIONS of test-fired rounds, load development, and most importantly researching a modified method of propellant manufacturing.
This new propellant was specifically designed for the US Military, and will remain an industry secret, known only to ATK, and the US Military Arsenals. Its performance is revolutionary – it’s a true Next-Generation propellant, and will be kept a secret for as long as possible. It provides improved velocity, an absurdly consistent & controlled burn rate, and virtually ZERO increase in chamber pressure compared to current 5.56mm NATO standard propellants.
Our NATO allies are practically BEGGING to get their hands on this propellant’s recipe and manufacturing technique, but the powers that be want to keep it under wraps (can’t say I blame them). You won’t likely see this propellant released anywhere on the commercial market for years, if not longer. It may not even become available to recreational civilian loaders for a decade – if they’re lucky.
It was first implemented in the Mk318 Mod0 SOST round for the USMC. Once the dramatic increase in performance was realized, it was quickly implemented into the M855A1 cartridge development program already under way for the DoD.
While the new M855 round is an excellent general purpose round, the M855A1 with its newer composite core and revolutionary new propellant will provide our troops with a much-sought performance increase.
The composite core design is a slight departure from the industry ‘norm’ in that the base of the round contains the softer core. No doubt the construction provides a hardened tip for penetration, and a softer core for better deformation & terminal performance than the standard SS109 bullet. However, due to the bullet design, it will still have a slight problem with ballistic precession. Minimal, but still a problem for long-range accuracy.
While the Mk318 Mod0 holds a notable advantage over the M855A1 round as far as medium-long range accuracy, it was never intended to be a standard-issue cartridge. It is much more specialized regarding its intended purpose.
Its bullet was specifically designed to provide match-grade accuracy at longer distances, better able to deal with issues resulting from ballistic precession, while dramatically improving performance both in-flight, and terminally through various medium-hard target surfaces – with virtually zero deflection after impact.
Initial tests of the SOST round have shown it capable of penetrating a windshield or car door, with minimal deflection, then cover a distance over 20 feet, and still possess enough kinetic energy to penetrate over 20 inches into ballistic gelatin blocks.
The M855A1 is a newer, next-generation, standard-issue round with dramatically increased performance from the standard issue M4 weapon system. Higher velocities, higher ballistic coefficient, and better in-flight & terminal ballistics. Ballistics Charts, Optic Reticles, and Bullet-Drop Compensators will need to be updated to meet the increased performance of this new round, just as they did when switching from 55 grain to 62 grain bullets for standard issue.
The USMC Mk318 Mod0 round is much better served in a precision obscured-target interdiction role. Much better suited as a standard issue round for Squad Designated Marksman or 5.56mm Snipers in a checkpoint rooftop overwatch where potential VBIEDs or other vehicular threats might be present.
While the Mk318 Mod0 is a superior round, the typical infantry soldier doesn’t necessarily require sub-MOA match-grade accurate ammunition in their M4. The M855A1 will provide similar Terminal ballistic performance for the typicaly infantry soldier that might be manning the aforementioned checkpoint down on the ground.
The technology is there – now it’s a matter of producing it in quantity, and issuing it on a larger scale to get it into the hands of our men in the field. That’s what the M855A1 is about – improved ammunition for general issue.
Industry friend — If you research the development of this ammo, and field reports reviewed from Iraq and Afghanistan, there were many specific incidents cited where multiple M855 rounds fired into vehicle windshields failed to penetrate effectively. This was cited as one of the primary reasons for development of the new round. Keep in mind that results which can be achieved at close range on fixed targets may bear little resemblance to what it actually observed in the field where deflection angle and target range may be different than on the test range. Here is what the Army Times has to say:
[quote]The M855 was developed in the 1970s and approved as an official NATO round in 1980. In recent years, troops have widely criticized it. They complain it is ineffective against barriers such as car windshields and often travels right through unarmored insurgents, with less than lethal effects.
Jason Gillis, a former Army staff sergeant, first witnessed the M855’s shortcomings in 2004 on the streets of Baghdad. He was a squad leader with 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, on patrol when a vehicle began speeding toward his unit.
After several warnings, “both of our M249s opened up instantly, forming a crisscross pattern of tracer that met at the vehicles engine compartment and windshield. Within seconds, riflemen and grenadiers were executing magazine changes while the vehicle kept rolling and finally stopped 10 meters from my lead troops,” Gillis recalled in an e-mail to Army Times.
“Assuming the driver was most likely riddled beyond recognition, we were all astounded to see the driver emerge from the vehicle completely unscathed,” Gillis wrote. “Closer inspection revealed that the M855 ammunition had failed to effectively penetrate the vehicle’s windshield despite the fact over 400 rounds were expended at extremely close range and on target.”.
The key here seems to be m855s observed inability to “effectively penetrate”.
Source: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/04/army_deadlier_round_040210w/
So when will the improved 7.62 stuff be available? I’d like to try some of it.
Editor, I’m pretty sure that the windshield problem wasn’t them not penetrating through the glass just that once they did they were thrown off course and didn’t hit the guy being aimed at. I don’t know for sure but it makes more sense then them simply getting stuck in the windshield.
I dont really believe in that experience, iv seen the M855 destroying car engines, and penetrating windshields at medium range, but it wasnt in my private yard with my civilian ar-15, it was during a rebel attack in the town of san jose del caguan, in colombia, a group of 5 guerillas attempted to gun down several soliders in a military out post , from a dimax truck (google it)they managed to kill 3 soliders and hurt 6 more, but the military forces reacted as well, firing from all directions and ditances (form 5 to 175 mts)with their 5.56 galil sar (using the m855) the car was totally destroyed, and the wind shields where filled with bullet holes, the engine stoped and started so spill oil all over the place, all the occupans where killed instantly,keep in mind the car was moving very fast as they tried to escape from the town, it wasnt an static target, so the history of 400 rounds fired at point blanck against a single windshield without any result seem a little bit fantastic for me
im in 2-3 infantry regt. HHC sniper section gun team 2 primary shooter have the m110 in 7.62x51mm m24 7.62x51mm remington xm2010 in .300 winchester mag and colt m4 pretty basic but with bipod legs from utg and a utg bug buster CQB with mil dot . im currently deployed in afghanistan with a special operations unit we train all the time and what ive found with this new ammo is its my go to long range ammo and cqb ammo long range ballistics amazing im hitting fuel barrels 8 out of 10 time at 750 meters in 24 to 34 mile per hour winds which is common in the hilly terrain love this ammo we also use the 5.56 LR is the same as m118lr but in 5.56 alot us it but the m855a1 has higher velocities and will still ping 12 inch targets at 300 to 500 easy and punch holes right through like butter the BC helps out so much the wind here is a huge factor but the spin drift is cut down by how well the bullets are being machined i dont currently remember the bc right off hand its some where in the 450 range which for a small caliber is amazing the green tip is alright ammo but the low weight and low velocities are no good ive still shot out to 800 meters with the common green tip and an acog but thats using every bit of my skill and knowing my terrain and wind factors all that noise ut with the m855a1 easily i was pinging targets at a sustained rate of fire at 522 meters with acog nothing special same stuff all you are issued then i shot out to 900 and it was difficult but can be done but with the new utg scope i got boom 750 no problem i just didnt get a chance to shoot farther that day because it was so hazzy its truly a bad ass round love it and its all i use plus we did testing on a jeep and it goes through the quarter panel through the battery and still punches through the engine block the other side we shot at punched through the quarter panel through the exaust manifold both cast iron sides then into the engine block i was a mechanic before army and ill say you shoot the engine of any vehicle with this stuff its done itll damn neer imeddiatly lock the engine up but at the least shut it down damn near immediatly so you isaf guys with dumb ass getting soldiers killed roe youll sto those vehicles at the check point im not isaf but something else that i dont have to worry as much but i will end with the isaf roe got tons of 82nd airborne guys killed seeing your brothers fall because of stupid pollitics really pisses you off you guys in 82nd arnet here and do what we do but you did a good job delta company especially rock on ledad the charge
The propellant is not made by ATK. It is made by General Dynamics.
We had a bullet ricochet off the tower window at a zero range. Never seen it happen before, luckily it only cracked the outside layer of the window.