Early on there were reports of poor knockdown power from the 5.56 ammo troops were using. Any news about which ammo has been working well?

My son’s in Iraq (due to rotate home in 34 days!) and back in May he got his hands on some of the 75 grain 5.56mm rounds, and he said it is much more accurate and a much better choice for serious use. The M855 “green tip†stuff has never been popular with grunts who actually might have to shoot someone with it.

He carries an M14 most of the time now so its not really an issue any more for him.

quote:

My son’s in Iraq (due to rotate home in 34 days!) and back in May he got his hands on some of the 75 grain 5.56mm rounds, and he said it is much more accurate and a much better choice for serious use. The M855 “green tip†stuff has never been popular with grunts who actually might have to shoot someone with it.

You don't mean that MATCH AMMO is more accurate than standard M855!

HOLY SHIT! THIS IS NEWS!

quote:

Originally posted by DaMan:

quote:

My son’s in Iraq (due to rotate home in 34 days!) and back in May he got his hands on some of the 75 grain 5.56mm rounds, and he said it is much more accurate and a much better choice for serious use. The M855 “green tip†stuff has never been popular with grunts who actually might have to shoot someone with it.

You don't mean that MATCH AMMO is more accurate than standard M855!

HOLY SHIT! THIS IS NEWS!

In case you missed it while sitting around pondering all these profound, deep thoughts of yours...even the older 56 grain M193 ammo is far more accurate than the M855 round is. It doesn’t take “match†ammo to beat the accuracy of that round...but then you have such a vast amount of first hand experience in shooting people in combat that I’m sure you were already aware of that.

The M855 is fine for CQB and for the ranges the metallic sighted M16's are usually fired at. But now that the military is using optics that actually and efectively increase the capabilities of the M16 they are quickly finding out that the M855 isnt cutting it. Through a scoped M16 the best accuracy I was ever able to get with M855 was just over 2" @ 100yds. More frequently the groups ran 3". I was able to scrounge a couple cases of the Black Hills stuf from the Marines that were set up near my unit. I shared it with my section and had everybody and their dog in my BN trying to get some from me. I felt a lot better having my mags loaded with it. I was getting true MOA out of my rack grade M16 with the stuff. It really showed its stuff farther out. I also had my own Leupold on it and that contributed a bunch. I left the scope and mount with a buddy when I came home. Last I heard the scope was still being passed around as folks rotated back home.

But the newer ammo is becoming more available in country. If someone is willing to do some looking and drug dealing with the other units it isnt too hard to get. But they could make it a lot easier for us to get it if you want my opinion. Hopefully it will replace the M855 but that remains to be seen.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
Early on there were reports of poor knockdown power from the 5.56 ammo troops were using. Any news about which ammo has been working well?

Dan,
The Marines and 10th Mountain learned the lesson the hard way first in Afghanistan. They were having to engage targets at extended ranges with M855 and found it it just didnt have the accuracy at ranges past 200 yds or the punch needed if they did connect. That led to the military getting smart and breaking M14's out of warstocks and also starting the designated marksman program. But in order to get more punch they snagged up all the Black Hills they could get their hands on. It was far more accurate and made a definate difference on the target.

The new production ammo from Black Hills is no longer stamped BHA, but is now stamped WCC with the NATO mark and year. But ammo comes in white cardboard boxes labed Black Hills.

I need to get my hands on some and run it through my 223 bolt rifles to see what it will do through them.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
In case you missed it while sitting around pondering all these profound, deep thoughts of yours...even the older 56 grain M193 ammo is far more accurate than the M855 round is. It doesn’t take “match†ammo to beat the accuracy of that round...but then you have such a vast amount of first hand experience in shooting people in combat that I’m sure you were already aware of that.

Easy there, Rick! I was just teasing a bit because you were in the .....
....mode!

Having said that...... I've got to take issue with your claim that M193 is more accurate than M855. You got any evidence for that claim?

Military ammo has to meet required accuracy requirements. Are you claiming M-855 ammunition has a lower accuracy requirement standard than M193?

Daman,
Rick is dead on about the accuracy of the M193 compared to the M855. You are hard pressed to find any US made M193 anymore. But if you can get your hands on some do a side by side accuracy test from the bench. The M193 flat out shoots better. Winchester USA brand white box 223 ammo is surplus M193 that is manufactured for the civiliam market in case you are interested in trying it out.

I have shot M193 and M855 side by side on the bench on several occasions and the group size is always smaller with the 55gr ammo. If you can get your hands on some M193 I will send you some M855 fo you to do a comparison.

I will say that a lot of the foreign ammo in both types of ammo is not as accurate as the US ammo.

quote:

Originally posted by DaMan:

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
In case you missed it while sitting around pondering all these profound, deep thoughts of yours...even the older 56 grain M193 ammo is far more accurate than the M855 round is. It doesn’t take “match†ammo to beat the accuracy of that round...but then you have such a vast amount of first hand experience in shooting people in combat that I’m sure you were already aware of that.

Easy there, Rick! I was just teasing a bit because you were in the .....
....mode!

Having said that...... I've got to take issue with your claim that M193 is more accurate than M855. You got any evidence for that claim?

Military ammo has to meet required accuracy requirements. Are you claiming M-855 ammunition has a lower accuracy requirement standard than M193?

I’m not quite sure when I was trying to “save†anyone...I merely made a statement of fact.

And, YES...I am claiming that the older 5.56mm military ammo was far more accurate than the M855. I have shot both...Have You?

I have shot both M193 and M855 MILITARY in the fast twist A2 barrel! No significant difference in accuracy at 100-200m! BUT beyond 200m the M855 wins..... hands down!

Now I’ve heard it all!

quote:

Originally posted by DaMan:
I have shot both M193 and M855 MILITARY in the fast twist A2 barrel! No significant difference in accuracy at 100-200m! BUT beyond 200m the M855 wins..... hands down!

Then you are the very first person to get these results. I have fired countless rounds of both types and have been HEAVILY involved with military ranges for the last 15 years and I have never witnessed your results.

quote:

I have fired countless rounds of both types and have been HEAVILY involved with military ranges for the last 15 years and I have never witnessed your results.

Have you ever fired at ranges greater than 200 yds? Or are you basing your comments on 25m zero targets?

But don't take MY word for it! Check out the military's accuracy acceptance standards for M855 vs. M193 ammo.

quote:

Originally posted by DaMan:

quote:

I have fired countless rounds of both types and have been HEAVILY involved with military ranges for the last 15 years and I have never witnessed your results.

Have you ever fired at ranges greater than 200 yds? Or are you basing your comments on 25m zero targets?

But don't take MY word for it! Check out the military's accuracy acceptance standards for M855 vs. M193 ammo.

FYI, M1Tanker is an active duty NCO in the US Army with multiple combat tours under his belt.

He also has been the NCOIC at the range at Ft. Bliss, Texas where our troops train prior to deploying for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Call me naive...but somehow I think he just might have a bit more 1st hand experience with military weapons and ammunition that an internet “expert†does.

I started shooting competitively at 16, joined the Army at 18 and shot competetivley for them for 7 years. In that time I earned my Distinguished Badge. I used not only a National Match M14 but also match AR-15's and multiple bolt rifles. I have shot the National Match course of fire with the NMM14, match AR-15's, and M16 as well as several 1000yd matches the same rifles. I also served as a BN Master Gunner for 3 years overseeing ranges and marksmanship training or several thousand soldiers in that time.

Does that answer your question to your satisfaction?

And as far as your comment regarding the accuracy acceptance levels: well the phrase "accuracy acceptance standards" pretty much sums it up. The standards are the maximum group size required for acceptance by the military. The M855 barely meets that standard while the M193 exceeds it by a considerable margin. Now the earlier (and I mean up until the late 70's) M193 was not nearly as acurate as the later production stuff starting in the mid 80's was. I can not answer as to why this is the case but it is. Also the M193 was designed for the CAR 15, M16, and M16A1 rifles.

My offer still stands: get yourself a known accurate AR-15 (preferably scoped for best accuracy testing) and I will send you some ammo to test for your self.

No, Bill! I think YOU should get an M16A2 (or the nearest civilian AR15 with the same barrel chamber configuration). And go out and test it!

Remember.... as close to issue as possible with GI chamber dimensions and barrel!

Then drive out Hwy. 90 early in the morning (before the wind picks up) and set a target at the 500m silhouette range. Take that ammo you offered me.... and test for yourself!

Don't substitute civilian (paramilitary) USE issued M193 and M855!

Report back with your findings!

PS - John Wayne's real name was Marion Morrison ...... and he never served a day in the military!

This is getting funnier and funnier!!

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:


This is getting funnier and funnier!!

It'll get even funnier if Bill goes out and makes an actual test rather than relying on the old 'hear-say' that he's picked up!

quote:

Through a scoped M16 the best accuracy I was ever able to get with M855 was just over 2" @ 100yds. More frequently the groups ran 3".

And what did M193 do at 100 yards, Bill?

Daman,
You give ignorance new meaning. I take it as a huge insult that you would consider 15 years of military service as "hear-say". You are an idiot.

I have tested US ISSUE in rack grade M16A1, A2, A4, and in the M4's. Plus several match versions and bolt rifles. I have shot them at ranges up to 1000yds. (neither one shoots for squat at that range) In every test, except for a couple individual groups that could not be repeated, the m193 outshot the M855. PERIOD!!!! On occasion I have even had lots of M193 that shot MOA.

I would just love to hear where you have gained your infinate first hand knowledge of accuracy with issue firearms. It is very obvious you none. Imagine that. Go get some first hand experience then come back and report your findings.

For someone who has absolutely zero first hand knowledge or experience you talk a lot of crap.

Bill, you are glamorizing him calling him an idiot and in fact the NAAI is considering asking for a rebuttal from you. BTW, NAAI stands for the National American Association of Idiots.

Bill, I might remind you that ignorant people like him delight in the limelight. They have nothing to add and just want to see their name in print. Best to ignore him and let him get reacalled by Trolls R Us.

quote:

On occasion I have even had lots of M193 that shot MOA.

Yup! Selected 3 shot groups!

quote:

In every test, except for a couple individual groups that could not be repeated, the m193 outshot the M855.

Maybe you should have tested at LONGER RANGE, Bill!

No..... wait 1,000 yds! Black Canyon? Are you the slow 'pit boy' that always pissed me off?!!!!

What's better at 600yds, Billy Bob? M855 or M193?

I'm relying on your 'expertise' to answer that one!

DaMan,
How about a Bushmaster M2A3 heavy bbl, with a Leupold Vari-xlll. Close enough to suit you? Yes, the 55gr. M193 is more accurate, at least at the 300 meters we were shooting at. The 62gr. M855 with the steel penetrator doesn't even come close.
You might want to try both before you start calling "bullshit" on the folks who know.

quote:

Bushmaster M2A3 heavy bbl,

What's that?

Same contour and twist as M16-A2?

Bushmaster Part# A BBL-20A2A is the Govt' profile.

quote:

M193 is more accurate, at least at the 300 meters we were shooting at.

300 meters is 300 meters at every location on Earth.

You sure you were comparing M193 and M855 US military issue ammo?

Hey you two play Nice!!!!!

I recently spent some time with a SGT from Delta Force just back from Iraq.
They tried some of the Black Hills "Match" ammo.
They went back to the M855 due to its better penetration through "stuff" people hide behind.
He said if you hit them square they go down.
We shot together for a week. No doubt he can hit then "square".

The average Joe probably doesn't give two shits how accurate his ammo is as long as it goes bang. Also The average Soldier probably doesn't know the difference between Black hills ammo and std ball ammo.

John

Does anyone know what brand/configuration bullet is loaded in the Black Hills ammo that troops were happy with?

I have no desire to engage in this pissing contest as I don't shoot the 223 and my experience with the M16 was not really great. In the mid-60s I never saw an M16 that would shoot better than about 3-5 inches and most were not that good. God, how I loved the M14!
But if you do shoot 223 I have some news for you - AIM Surplus has a mess of 223 for sale at http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/copy_of__223.html. They list both ADCOM M855 Ball and Lake City SS109 and the price looks right.
Just for what it is worth.

quote:

Originally posted by TrapperP:
I have no desire to engage in this pissing contest

God, how I loved the M14!

Trapper,
Those are very wise words. I didnt want to turn it into one either and I let myself get suckered into it. There isnt any excuse for my acting like that.

I have to completely agree with you about about the M14. A finer battle rifle was never built.

But I do have to say that they have come a long way with the M16. With good ammo a decent rack grade will shoot under 2 MOA and I have seen a few that would do better than that.

500Grains,
My apologies for hijacking your thread and for my turning this into a pissing contest. I do hope that n the middle of all that you were able to get the answers you wanted.

Bill,
It's a shame you try to put out some honest information and it turned into a pissing match, and unfortunatley you fell for it. I don't know if you heard future developement the Army does for a new battle rifle all the other branches of the armed forces must be able to use it and it must use the same type of ammo ie; 5.56. So some folks out there who think they are going to adopt the 6.8 are wrong. SO it looks like the 5.56 is here for the long run.

Come on now hands down the FN FAL was one of the finest battle rifles ever built. If I was in Iraq kicking down doors I would prefer a 12 guage in a autoloader using buckshot, Or a m-4 carbine capable of full auto. You have to admit hit one of those bastard six or seven times at close range with a 5.56 it is going to take the fight out of them real quick. Then again hit them with some buckshot you don't have to worry about them anymore call in the meat wagon!

John

Having fired enough of the M-855 thru bolt guns, AR-15s, and M-16s, I agree it isn't the most accurate ammo around, and frankly, neither is the brown canned L2A2 British stuff.

Having just returned from Iraq and being a Quartermaster officer, I can tell you that I sat thru many a briefing, and regarding ammunition, M 855 was specifically addressed by the JAG -it is the ammo of choice for most BNs/units. Working in and around S-4, we didn't just order anything we felt like ammo wise, and neither did our supply sergeants.

“AA53, Cartridge, Caliber 5.56mm Special Ball, Long Range Mk 262 Mod 0
The Mk 262 Mod 0 quickly earned an enviable reputation in Afghanistan for excellent accuracy and superior terminal performance. Kills were made with this load out to 700 meters. According to one account, in one engagement two SF operators armed with SPRs killed 75 Taliban with 77 rounds. Upgraded to become the current MK 262 Mod 1, this load features a 77-grain Sierra MatchKing with a cannelure for reliable operation in full-automatic weapons. Ordnance Gelatin tests showed improvements in depth of initial yaw and consistency over the M855 cartridge. Work began for incorporation of Mil-SPEC primer and cartridge case, packaging and specification. Initial SPR weapons and AA53 field reports very positive. The MK 262 MOD 0 was specifically developed for use in the MK 12 SPR. A total of 27 different Off-the-Shelf cartridges were tested, leading to a down select to three, (73 gr. Berger, 87 gr. PRL, and 77gr. Sierra) Berger sold and moved facilities, causing manufacturing reliability issues, PRL shut down, leaving Sierra. The Navy, Army and USMC match teams used initial COTS load with success. The manufacture was willing to work with Government requirements. It demonstrated consistent initial yaw in soft tissue between 3-4 inches at ranges from 15’ to 300 meters. This enables engagements out to 600 meters (800 possible depending on conditions). It greatly enhances the capability of the M16 or M4A1 Carbine (2 minute of angle accuracy very realistic, vs 3-5 minute of angle with M855). On 28 October 2002 The Virginia Contracting Activity, on behalf of the Defense Intelligence Agency, announced [Solicitation Number MDA908-03-Q-0008] that it intended to solicit and negotiate with Black Hills Ammunition, Inc. on a sole source basis to award a contract for MK262, Mod 0, 5.56MM 77 Grain LR Ammunition. If no affirmative written documentation, technical specifications, and pricing are received within 5 days of this synopsis challenging this intended award, to the effect that a comparable source is available or that it is more advantageous, a contract will be established with Black Hills Ammunition, Inc., P.O. Box 3090, Rapid City, SD 57709-3090.“

Quote from John Farnum:

“Comment: My heroic friend is trying to make the best of an unhappy situation . We were told that the new M855 bullet would solve both the range and penetration limitations of the M193. As was the case with the Patriot Missil e in 1991, we were (knowingly) lied to!

The Patriot Missile didn't work back in 1991, but, generals and presidents alike spent too much time reading their own press releases! It was only whe n Patriot batteries failed utterly to protect Tel Aviv from Scud missiles that the lie began to unravel. We later learned, to our horror, that the success rate of the Patriot system in intercepting and destroying against incoming Scud missiles was, in truth, close to zero!

By the same token, the hardened penetrating dart, imbedded within each M855 bullet, weighs only ten grains. There is no way a ten-grain projectile is go ing to penetrate anything! The truth is, neither range nor penetration limitations have been adequately addressed by M855 ammunition. It is woefull y inadequate on both counts and vastly inferior to the M193 round it replaced.“

It's not worth arguing over whether the M855 is more accurate than the M193. Niether of these cartridges is very accurate.

The Blackhills stuff is MUCH more accurate. But not likely to be standard issue any time soon.

Daman,

How right you are, the current round is ineffective. I don't see the government buying Blackhills stuff in great quanity when they can buy the current stuff at from what I saw was 38 cents a round. How much is the blackhills stuff cost per round, and there is know way they could mass produce that much ammo anyhow.

quote:

They went back to the M855 due to its better penetration through "stuff" people hide behind.

There are always "trade-offs."

And what kind of “stuff†would that be?

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
And what kind of “stuff†would that be?

Cars, trucks..... you know.... oncoming stuff carrying BOMBS!

Yeah...22 caliber bullets are just what I would reach for if I wanted to take out a car or a truck.

Where do you come up with this stuff????