Comments on: Criticizing the M855 5.56mm Round

By: Hawk

Hawk — Fri, 30 May 2008 14:41:00 +0000

No horse is ever so dead it can’t stand a bit more beating. The Army spent several years investigating this particular problem after complaints came out of Afghanistan in 2002 — and came to some rigorous science-based conclusions. The study took a hard look at both 5.56mm (not just M855, either) and 7.62 (and dabbled in a range of other calibers). There’s a summary article on the effort available as a free download – go to http://wstiac.alionscience.com/ and download the WSTIAC Quarterly newsletter. It’s the lead article: ‘Small Caliber Lethality’. Reading between the lines of the conclusion, it would appear (1) work is continuing, and (2) lessons learned are being applied in some fashion.

By: Flanker

Flanker — Thu, 29 May 2008 06:25:00 +0000

Good points by USMC Steve that I did not mention! If it’s not going to expand, it’s got to tumble and early enough to impart damage via energy dump. It’s not only bullet design, but weight bias and rifling twist. Police agencies are not only free to pick their bullet design, but their rifles twist as well………..I suspect most have wisely avoided the Mil Spec 1:7 rifling that over stabilises the M855 (and it’s cousins) round. My wish list Masada or piston operated Barret would have the twist recommended by their guys……….that works best with the 6.8mm bullet. Dfens, sounds like my old State of Michigan Criminal Justice/Law Enforcement agency (entrenched Civil Service—pronounced Serv Us LOL!). Once someone (bureau, department, division……..pick one) becomes invested in an idea, concept, design, or whatever…..they’ve got enough of their political capital and/or reputations in it; that to later deviate from the party line, or even worse………to reverse course is saying ‘I’m/we were wrong’ and the the others were right. Thereby losing authority, respect, power and worse……maybe budget.

By: Dfens

Dfens — Wed, 28 May 2008 16:03:00 +0000

I wish I knew the answer to the ‘why’ question too, Flanker. I think part of the answer is that the Army set up a bureaucracy whose sole purpose was to be an apologist for the M-16 and that bureaucracy doesn’t want to die. At least, that’s how things usually work in my part of the military-industrial complex. As far as bullet tumbling goes as a method of causing more tissue damage, this typically doesn’t seem to work. If a bullet is that close to instability, it will wobble significantly in flight and can easily be deflected by leaves and small branches. Even though I’m not real hot on the 6.8, I did find an article that others might enjoy regarding its development and merits.

By: USMC Steve

USMC Steve — Wed, 28 May 2008 13:06:00 +0000

HOrnady makes a 62 grain ball bullet of construction identical to the older M193 round, in that it is not intended to be a body armor or armorpiercing round, and its terminal performance is like that of the M193 in that it goes in about 2-3 inches and then loses its directional stability. The M855 round does do this, but it needs to penetrate over 10 inches to do so, and the average human is only about 9 inches deep from front to back. The contract for ammo needs to be changed to the Hornady 62 grain conventional constructed bullet. Then when we go up against someone without all the fancy crap on them, we can kill them better. And the ammo would cost less as well, something for the beancounters out there.

By: Vitor

Vitor — Wed, 28 May 2008 11:44:00 +0000

Mk262 for the win!

By: Flanker

Flanker — Wed, 28 May 2008 10:31:00 +0000

In regards to Dfens original comment…………that’s the party line all right, that attitude has been widely discussed in the defense and gun media. The key question, that I’ve never seen answered, is WHY the Army establishment is so stuck on defending the M4/5.56 M855 combination? Can you give us any insight into that? A side bar to this issue is that of all the police (current & former) I’ve talked with about the 5.56 are quite to very satisfied with it. HHHHHMMMMM???? The troops are bitchin’ (and rightly so) about it and the cops are sayin’ it’s cool. What’s Up With That? That’s easy enough……….bullet design. The rifles are the same (M4/14.5 in barrel) but the bullets fired are different. The troops are using a semi armor piercing round designed to perform well against Warsaw Pact soft body armor and steel helmets at 200m, while the cops are able to use hollow point, ballistic nylon tipped, and other types of bullets. Most of which tend to destabilise and tumble and/or expand upon hitting the target (intended hopefully!). Thereby imparting that all important fight stopping energy (as noted by other posters above). Seems to me, what we really need isn’t another change in calibers, just a redesign of the standard 5.56 bullet to something that’s more effective at energy transfer and conforms to the Geneva Convention (or any other agreements the US is a signatory of). I’m not taking anything away from the validity of the comments above about the 6.5 and 6.8 mm rounds. They’re unquestionably more effective cartridges, because they’re more powerful rounds firing heavier bullets. Adopting any of them is obviated by the US dragooning the rest of NATO and the West into adopting ‘our’ 5.56 round as the standard though. What would my personal pick be for when I go back to the Stan or to Iraq (supposing supply wasn’t an issue)? Either the Masada or a Barret with a 16in barrel using the 6.8mm SPC.

By: Dfens

Dfens — Wed, 28 May 2008 08:36:00 +0000

I don’t think you’re following me, Delphi. The amount of destructive energy a bullet causes to the enemy is relative to the size of the shockwave it drags through the tissue. Now I’m assuming the bullet is not hitting a bone here, because obviously that will change things considerably. The .223 is slipping through without causing an appreciable amount of damage because even though it travels at high speed, it doesn’t displace much tissue in it’s path through the body. Now a .256 diameter bullet does displace more tissue, but not a lot more. It’s a step in the right direction. Maybe, given the modest weight of the cartridge and the low kick produce, maybe it is an optimum round. That wouldn’t be my guess, though. I tend to prefer .30 cal or larger, and I don’t see a down side to guessing too big, because like I’ve said, you can always shoot a smaller bullet out of a bigger bore, but the converse is not true. In fact, there’s a lot more you can do with a bigger barrel. You can shoot all sorts of specialty ammunition, like fin stabilized flechetts, they’re better for lobbing those grenades-on-a-stick things we used to use in WW2, they’re lighter for the same stiffness as a smaller bore barrel, they’re easier to clean. As Murdoc and others have noted, the .45 ACP round has performed really well at short range in a number of weapons. I don’t see why the Army doesn’t develop a whole range of guns based on a .45 cal bore. They could have everything from a belted magunm to a pistol based on that bore, and they could launch a huge variety of projectiles from them. Of course, that would require an Army of thinkers, instead of an Army of yes men.

By: Delphi

Delphi — Wed, 28 May 2008 02:42:00 +0000

Dfens, according to my rough calculations, the 6.5 MPC round at 95 grains, out of a 14.5′ barrel deliver more energy than the 7.62X39 mm round, fired by an AK47. It also has a better BC than the 5.56 mm, 7.62X39 mm, and 6.8 SPC rounds. It is almost as good as the 6.5 Grendel has, which means that can deliver the punch very well at short or long range. Meanwhile, the 6.5 MPC is weighing only 10% more than the 5.56 mm cartridge and requires only a barrel and bolt change to be used with the current M16/M4 rifles. The 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC are good cartridges also, but their performance is coming with the price of 30% weight increase and requirement for significant changes to the rifle and magazines.

By: edward_m

edward_m — Tue, 27 May 2008 22:01:00 +0000

A return to a reliable, effective close support weapon is long overdue, and one need only look to the M3 ‘Grease Gun’ to find a heavy hitting weapon. It used standard .45 ACP rounds, which are known by all who own a 1911 to be effective, hard hitting rounds. Its easy and cheap to produce, much smaller than the M4 Carbine, so tankers finally get what they need, and most important, its been proven recently with the military. Thats right, as recently as 1991, it was deployed with the 19th Engineer Battalion, attached to the 1st Armored Division in the first Gulf War. This constant cry for ‘newer, sexier’ arms is out of control. Why waste funds on development of a weapon that will end up unable to match the performance of a simple, light weapon effective out to 100 yards (which, if you think about it, is more than enough in house- to house-combat), which can fire at approx. 400 rounds a minute, with a greatly reduced chance of blowing through not just the wall of the room you’re in, but the walls of the NEXT house. And a weapon that has proven itself for over 66 years. K.I.S.S. (Keep It Stupidly Simple) should be tattooed on the head of every congressman who serves on a weapons funding board.

By: Dfens

Dfens — Tue, 27 May 2008 21:53:00 +0000

A 6.5mm is a respectable bullet, but the question is not only how much energy does it keep. You also have to consider how much energy it transmits into the target. Another thing to consider is the fact that you can shoot a 6.5mm bullet out of an 8mm barrel using a sabot. The converse is not true. An 8×57mm will shoot a 6.5mm bullet with a sabot faster than a 6.5×57mm cartridge will.