m855a1 For Sale | At Best Prices

(5 customer reviews)

$56.00

Quantity: 20 rounds

Made in usa

Compare
Categories: , Product ID: 4181

Description

m855a1 For Sale:

m855a1 for sale picture

The M855A1*(M855A1 for sale), a 5.56 mm Ball ammunition, is an enhanced performance round for today’s combat and training environments.

It works with the M4 Carbine, the M249 machine gun, and the H&K and M16A2 rifles.

 It is suitable for use in most weapons with a 1-in-7 barrel twist.

The M855A1 has a copper-jacketed steel core, differing from the previous M855 round which has a lead core.

The so-called “green ammo” not only has increased penetration of armor and hard targets, but allows the Army to be more environmentally friendly on its ranges and training environments.

The M855A1 is optimized for the shorter-barrel M4 where the standard M855 was optimized for the M16.

The powder burns faster and creates more pressure, and has the effect of reducing flash.

The round yaws like the M855, but its yaw is more consistent and predictable, meaning its terminal effects are not yaw dependant.

The Army plans to replace its entire inventory of M855 rounds with the M855A1 round.

BRIEF HISTORY OF M855A1 FOR SALE :

In 1982, the Army adopted the 5.56mm M855 round to replace the M193.

In an effort to achieve better performance at longer ranges with the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW).

A steel penetrator in the front end of the M855 provides increased hard-target performance.

Development of the M16A2 rifle, which matched the twist of the M249 SAW, also allowed use of the heavier M855 round.

The M193 is still produced today, largely for foreign military sales.

From 2003 to 2006, the Army conducted a study of available bullets, commercial and military, and found none that provided improved perforA,A!mance over the M855 against the target sets required of a general-purpose round.

Ensuring Consistency and Environmental Responsibility

In post-combat surveys and field reports from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most Soldiers have indicated that the round works fine, delivering the desired effects against threat targets.

But some Soldiers have reported that the round did not perform consistently, causing concern in the ammunition community.

In parallel, mounting environmental concerns drove the Army to consider replacing environmentally unfriendly materials such as lead.

The Army’s ammunition community, led by PEO Ammo, saw an opportunity to address the two concerns associated with the M855 round-lead and consistency.

The Army’s solution is the new M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round (EPR).

This round offers better performance than the M855 against all targets likely to be engaged with small arms

. This is quite a feat, considering the long-standing solid performance of the M855.

While it’s true that a number of bullets (such as armor-piercing bullets) can penetrate hard targets well.

They don’t provide the needed effects against soft targets.

Conversely, some bullets (such as hunting rounds, hollow-point, and other bullets) work well against soft targets but can’t penetrate harder barriers.

Nor do hollow points meet the Army’s requirement to adhere to the Law of War, defined as “[t]hat part of international law that regulates the conduct of armed hostilities.

It is often called the ‘law of armed conflict’ ” (DoD Directive 2311.01E, DoD Law of War Program).

Even today, we have found no other round-other than the new EPR-that can outperform the M855 as a capable, general-purpose round.

Why the M855A1 for sale Excels

So what makes the EPR so good’ It uses the same components as the M855-a jacket, a penetrator, and a metal slug.

But the new round contains some subtle changes (see Figure 1).

The copper cup, from which the jacket is formed, is reverse-drawn, the opposite of how the M855 jacket is drawn.

The hardened steel penetrator is almost twice as heavy as the one used in the M855 and is fully exposed instead of hiding beneath the softer copper jacket.

The slug is made of copper, making the projectile nonhazardous to the environment while delivering needed performance.

Since the EPR is similar to the M855, the Army can use the same manufacturA,A!ing equipment now used for the M855.

Providing additional savings and large-scale manufacturing capability.

Once the M855A1 replaces the leaded M855, it will reduce the amount of lead in production by approximately 2,000 metric tons yearly.

It is based on the amount now used to make the M855.

There are three main areas in which the new round excels: soft-target consistency, hard-target penetration, and the extended range at which it maintains these performance improvements.

This is not to imply that the EPR increases the maximum effective range of the M4 or M16.

Its trajectory matches the M855’s, which aids in training, lessens the need to re-zero the weapon.

It allows it to link to the current tracer round (the M856) for eventual use in the M249 SAW.

So while the maximum effective range does not increase, effectiveness at range does.

Meaning the round greatly extends the range of desired effects along its trajectory.

The Army tackled the consistency issue by focusing on the yaw of a projectile.

And how differences in yaw can influence results when striking soft targets.

The M855 round, similar to the Army’s M80 (7.62mm ball round), is a “yaw-dependent” bullet.

As any bullet travels along its trajectory.

It “wobbles” in both pitch and yaw, causing the projectile to strike its target at different attitudes with virtually every shot.

For a yaw-dependent bullet such as the M855 or M80, this results in varying performance.

Depending upon where in the yaw/pitch cycle the bullet strikes its target.

For example, at a high angle of yaw, the M855 performs very well, transferring its energy to the target in short order.

At a low angle of yaw, however, the bullet reacts more slowly, causing the inconsistent effects observed in the field.

The M855A1 is not yaw-dependent. Like any other bullet, it “wobbles” along its trajectory.

However, the EPR provides the same effects when striking its target, regardless of the angle of yaw.

This means the EPR provides the same desired effects every time, whether in close combat situations or longer engagements.

In fact, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) verified through live-fire tests against soft targets that, on average.

The M855A1 surpassed the M80 7.62mm round.

The 7.62mm, although a larger caliber, suffers from the same consistency issue as the M855, but to a higher degree.

Hard-target performance is a second area where the EPR really shines (see Figure 2).

The exposed, heavier, and sharper penetrator, along with a higher velocity.

It allows Soldiers to penetrate tougher battlefield barriers than is possible with the current M855.

Although it’s not an armor-piercing round, the EPR can penetrate 3/8 inch-thick mild steel at distances.

Approaching 400 meters (based on the range at which 50 percent of the rounds can pass through the barrier).

The M855 only penetrates this material out to approximately 160 meters.

Not only is this performance much better than the M855’s with its smaller steel penetrator, it is vastly better than the M80 7.62mm round.

Additionally, the EPR can penetrate concrete masonry units at ranges out to 80 meters with the M16 and 40 meters with the M4.

The M855 can’t penetrate this type of battlefield barrier at any range.

Also notable is the EPR’s excellent performance against softer intermediate barriers such as car doors, windshields, or Kevlar fabric.

The thinner metal found on car doors poses no problem.

When engaging targets behind windshields with the EPR, ARL has shown an increase in the probability of hitting the occupant.

This is due to both the steel penetrator and the copper slug remaining intact through the glass.

Furthermore, ARL tested the round against 24 layers of Kevlar fabric out to 1,000 meters.

But discontinued the test as the Kevlar showed no sign of being able to stop the EPR.

The EPR also penetrates some lesser-quality body armors designed to stop 7.62mm ball rounds.

Another benefit Soldiers will see from the new round is its effectiveness when engaging soft targets at longer ranges.

As a small-caliber projectile’s velocity decreases, it eventually will reach a point at which it can no longer transfer most of its energy to its target.

Below this velocity, which equates to range, the round is more likely to pass through its target with little effect.

The M855A1 can maintain consistent, desired effects at a much lower velocity, resulting in excellent effectiveness at far greater ranges along its trajectory.

In addition to the above-mentioned performance improvements, the EPR is more accurate than the M855.

Accuracy testing during production lot acceptance has shown that, on average, 95 percent of the rounds will hit within an 8 x 8-inch target at 600 meters.

It also uses a flash-reduced propellant optimized for the M4’s shorter barrel.

The good news is that all of these performance improvements come with no weight increase to the Soldier.

Soldiers Are the Focus

Soldiers will surely discuss the M855A1 EPR during their ritual debates on guns and ammo.

The new M855A1 will greatly increase Soldier performance on the battlefield, but inevitably.

Soldiers will have the final vote as they must maintain their weapon systems, train, aim, and engage their targets.

As always, good marksmanship skills are critical for success in small-arms engagements.

No matter how good the bullet, it can’t do its job if it doesn’t hit the target.

During the past 50 years, 5.56mm general-purpose ammunition has evolved to a level of performance.

That addresses all of the major warfighting needs of our services.

The M855A1 EPR is a significantly improved 5.56mm round that provides excellent soft target.

Also consistency and vastly better hard target performance.

It increases our Soldiers’ effectiveness at extended ranges with better accuracy-all without increasing their load.

The M855A1 represents the most significant performance leap in small-arms ammunition in decades.

Our Soldiers deserve the best, and with the M855A1 EPR, they get it.

LTC JEFFREY K. WOODS is the Product Manager for Small-Caliber Ammunition.

In the Office of the Project Manager Maneuver Ammunition Systems, PEO Ammo.

He holds a B.S. in business administration from the University of Texas.

And an M.S. in operations research from the Florida Institute of Technology.

Woods is also a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.

And Defense Systems Management College, and is a U.S. Army Acquisition Corps member.

The M855A1 has been the subject of plenty of gnashing of teeth and is both loathed and loved.

Today we are going to take an unbiased look at the M855A1 and discuss why the Army.

Marine Corps moved to the new round and explore its benefits as well as its downsides.

Breaking down the M855A1 for sale

The M885A1 utilizes a 62-grain projectile, much like the M855.

It is slightly longer than the M855 due to its construction.

The Army completely eliminated lead from the equation.

The use of a copper jacket combined with a copper plug maintained the weight of the M855A1 round and offered better penetration.

Comparison of M193, M855, M855A1, and M855A1 copper core rounds

Additionally, the round’s elimination of lead allows the projectile to be green-friendly and doesn’t pollute the Army’s training areas.

The copper cup sits at the bottom of the round; it is a reverse-drawn copper alloy jacket, which is the opposite of the M855.

The steel slug is heavier and exposed versus the copper jacket that encloses the steel slug on the M855 round.

Beyond the projectile, the M855A1 is optimized for the shorter barrel of the M4.

The M855 was optimized for the longer-barreled M16 series rifle.

The M855A1 uses a faster burning powder that creates more pressure and amps up velocity.

This higher velocity results in more effective penetration and down-range performance.

Related: This is why the M855A1 replaced the M855

Is m855a1 armor-piercing?

Armor-piercing is a loaded term that’s tough to define without defining the armor.

The Army and military, in general, have a set definition of armor-piercing.

According to the military’s definition, the M855A1 is not an armor-piercing round.

Instead, the famed blacktip M993 is the Army’s 5.56 caliber armor-piercing round.

The M855A1 will pierce through soft armor and subpar armor plates but doesn’t zip through modern armor.

M855A1

The M855A1 uses a steel penetrator that does well against hard barriers and even mild steel plates.

In fact, it performs substantially better than the original M855 when it comes to barrier penetration.

With that said, it’s still not considered armor-piercing.

Related: War elephants: The original heavy armor fought into the 1950s

The M855A1 versus the M855

The M855A1 does a fantastic job of piercing through hard barriers.

When it zips through wood, glass, car steel, and similar mediums, the projectile maintains great ballistic potential.

It can pierce a ⅜ inch mild steel plate out to 160 yards.

Beyond that, the round yaws like the standard M855, and when yawing, the round increases its terminal effectiveness.

The difference in yawing translates to more consistent performance regardless of the angle.

When the standard M855 approaches via a high angle of yaw, the performance is brilliant and effective.

When the M855 strikes at a low angle of yaw, the round performs inconsistently.

However, the M855A1 performs regardless of the angle of yaw.

As such, the M855A1 isn’t yaw-dependent. It even outperforms the 7.62 M80 round in that regard:

The 7.62 might be bigger and heavier, but the M80 is yaw-dependent, much like the M855.

The M855A1 doesn’t offer more range than the M855 but is more effective at longer ranges.

Both the M855 and M855A1 rounds maintain the same trajectory, but along that trajectory.

The M855A1 performs with great efficiency along that trajectory.

All this, without any weight increase to the individual soldier.

The downsides

Not even advanced ammo design gives us a free lunch and the M855A1 does have some downsides.

First, to obtain M16 performance in an M4, the manufacturer had to use a faster burning powder that accelerates the velocity of the round.

In doing so, pressure increases.

The M855 has an average PSI of 51,500. The M855A1 increases that pressure to over 61,000 PSI.

This results in increased wear on firearms, including on their the bolt and barrel.

Notice the angle of the projectile on the right. The right represents the proper feeding angle. (Courtesy Larry Vickers)

The exposed steel penetrator and harder nature of the round were also shown to wear down the barrel extensions of M4 rifles.

The round didn’t fully clear the ramps of the M4 and would be driven into the feed ramps.

To remedy this, a new magazine design was implemented that ensured the round sat higher in the magazine and fed into the weapon without damaging the barrel extension.

The future of 5.56 Projectiles

The benefits of the M855Aq are apparent. In the short term, the round will make the Soldier and Marine more lethal and better able to kill their enemies.

The long-term issues of durability are a major concern, however as Soldiers and Marines can’t afford a broken bolt in the middle of a firefight.

For the M855A1 to function long-term, the military will need to ensure both the M27 and M4 rifles can withstand the abuse the round throws at them.

FAQ About M855A1 For Sale

  • M855A1 armor-piercing?

According to the military’s definition, the M855A1 is not an armor-piercing round.

Instead, the famed blacktip M993 is the Army’s 5.56 caliber armor-piercing round.

The M855A1 will pierce through soft armor and subpar armor plates but doesn’t zip through modern armor.

  1. Why is M855a1 not armor-piercing?

The bullet (projectile) must also have a core made entirely out of the metals listed above, or be a full jacketed bullet with a jacket weighing more than 25% of its overall weight.

This means that the SS109/M855 bullets wouldn’t be covered, as their cores are partly steel, and partly lead.

  • Difference between M855 and M855A1?

The M855A1 has a copper-jacketed steel core, differing from the previous M855 round which has a lead core.

The so-called “green ammo” not only has increased penetration of armor and hard targets.

But allows the Army to be more environmentally friendly on its ranges and training environments.

Does USMC use M855A1?

The Marines adopted the M855A1 on December 2017 .

The problems with the IAR and also the M855A1 were known for some time

. An Army test in 2016 revealed that the M855A1 would scratch and wear the forcing cone on the IAR and cause reliability issues.

FAQ On M855A1 For Sale

  • M855A1 Green Tip?
M855A1 For Sale

Also, the M855A1 (right) is manufactured from a copper jacket, steel arrow head core with a copper plug.

The M855A1 For Sale projectile fit the Army requirement for a “green” projectile that does not have any lead.

Image result

Green-tip ammunition is most common in 5.56/. 223 Rem caliber and is also mainly designed for use with the AR platform.

These rounds were originally considered controversial, as they meet one of the criteria of the federal definition of armor-piercing ammunition.

  • Why military utilize green tip?

The US military adopted the round in the early 1980s to replace the M193 5.56 ammo in use at the time.

It was renamed M855, and the tips were painted green so personnel could readily differentiate the new ammo from the old M193 rounds, which were gradually phased out.

  • Civilians buying green tip ammo?

M855A1 For Sale

Can I Legally Buy Green Tip Ammo? Currently, green-tipped ammo is legal for US civilians to own under federal law.

However, certain states, such as California, have Draconian gun laws that constantly seek to limit what state residents can own.

  • Can M855 Stop Level 3?

Level III will stop most of all 5.56mm and 7.62mm bullets, but will not defeat military-grade armor-piercing ammo.

For example, a NATO M855 5.56 x 45mm bullet with a 62-grain steel core will defeat a Level III armor system.

It will, however, defeat a 5.56 x 45 mm bullet at 55 grain.

  • Purpose Of 5.7 x28 design?

The design was patented back in 1989 by FNH. It was originally developed as part of a military Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) project undertaken by FNH for NATO.

In a nutshell, the 5.7x28mm was originally designed to replace the 9mm cartridge in NATO service.

  • Calibers comparable to 5.7 x28?

However, if any caliber can replace the 9mm, it’s the 5.7x28mm. It offers many of the same benefits the 9mm provided compared to the .45ACP. A higher-capacity magazine with lighter, mo

Picture

m855a1 for sale comparison

Shown above is a comparison of the M855,
M856 Tracer, early M855A1 and the issue M855A1.
The difference between the early and issue M855A1 projectile is the plug under the penetrator. Early projectiles used a tin/bismuth alloy.
It was found there was not enough mass to it to properly stabilize in the arctic environment so they switched over to copper.
Lead has more mass to it than either the tin/bismuth or copper alloy for the same weight.
You have to have more copper to get the same weight.
You will notice that the M855A1 projectile is just slightly longer.

Picture

Looking at the cross sections you are able to see that both projectiles are made up of three components.
The M855 (left) consists of a copper jacket, steel penetrator core and lead plug.
The M855A1 (right) is manufactured from a copper jacket,
steel arrow head core with a copper plug.
The M855A1 projectile fit the Army requirement for a “green” projectile that does not have any lead. This creates a much more expensive projectile.
How was the Army able to sell this more expensive projectile?
They increased the cost to produce all other military rounds to offset the expense of this new cartridge.

Picture

Shown is a US Government comparison chart showing the M855 on the left
and the M855A1 on the right. Notice the vital information left out, velocity and chamber pressure.
This information is where the metal meets the meat.
This is the area that is significantly different between the two that has caused all the controversy. I have seen government
spec sheets that include their claim the
M855A1 is many steps ahead of the M855.
However, I have never been naive enough believe the government gives all the proper info out. Like most things,
I never pay attention to what others tell me so I find out for myself.
I took M193,
M855, M995 and M855A1 to a ballistic laboratory and got all the information.
Regardless of what the Army claims, this is an independent test.

Armor Penetration

I procured a 1/2 piece of armor plate.
The steel was secured to a railroad tie so it was stationary and would not move.
The rifle was a 16 inch M4-type rifle and each shot was taken at 25 yards.
One round each of M193, M855, M995 AP and M855A1 were shot.

Picture

Looking at the top left is the M193 Ball (FMJ).
You can clearly see not much more than a dent.
To its right is the M855, only slightly better and you can easily see the slightly deeper penetration due to the steel penetrator.
Bottom left is the M855A1.
Clearly the M855A1 is superior in hard steel penetration going approximately half way through the armor plate.
To that right is the M995 Armor Piercing round which completely penetrated the steel.

Terminal Ballistics of m855a1 for sale 

The Army claims that the M855A1 round is superior in terminal performance.
They claim that the M855A1 is not yaw dependent.
This part of the testing did not necessarily show the new round to be a better terminal performer than the M855.

Picture

M855a1 results

Picture

M855A1

Clearly the tissue damage was better with the M855.
The biggest difference was the Initial Yaw began at
1.25 inches on the M855 and the M855A1 started earlier at 1 inch. The M855A1 completely fragmented, retained nothing.
The M855 retained 48.2% of its weight.
Now this type of gel is not an exact match for human tissue.
It does not take into account the different density of various types of tissue/organs.
It also does not take into account bones.
I would be far more likely to say wounding tissue damage was closer to comparable.

Mechanical Issues With M4/M16-Series, as Well as Others

The biggest problem with the M855A1 ammunition is the way it is loaded.
It is NOT loaded to the 5.56mm NATO specifications, which all 5.56x45mm
caliber rifles are designed for.
This is clearly in violation of the NATO standardization contracts.
The Army has not been forthright to anyone, including our allies,
to the extremely higher port and chamber pressures that will cause bolt breakage,
damage to receiver extensions, upper receivers and cause a barrel to wear 50% faster.
The M855A1 was designed to give 20″ barrel performance in a 14.4″ barrel.

Part of this was a change in the propellant change which brought pressures higher to peak at the shorter carbine gas system rather than rifle length gas system.

As you saw in the government released info on the M855A1,

they did not release muzzle velocity or chamber pressure.
There had been many rumors going around as to what the specifications actually are.
So to come up with undisputable facts of what all these numbers are,
I tested in a ballistics laboratory both the M855 as well as the M855A1 for comparison purposes.

Picture

M855

Picture

M855A1

Looking at chamber pressure,
both cartridges were fired in a 14.5 inch M4A1, both projectiles are a 62 grain projectile.
The M855 has an average chamber pressure of 51,522 psi,
which is within the 52-55,000 psi range the M4 and all 5.56mm military rifles are designed.
The M855A1 is increased vastly to 61,830.
In fact, you see pressure levels as high as 62,900 psi.
Please keep in mind that a proof cartridge is 70,000 psi.
Clearly the rifle is being significantly driven past its design parameters.
The increase in chamber pressure also increases the bolt velocity substantially driving the cyclic rate much faster,

which increases parts wear and service life of both the bolt and barrel.

Bolts have been known to break within 3,000 rounds and barrel life has been cut by 50%.

This is NOT a deficiency in the M4 carbine.
The first time the M855A1 ammunition was tested was not in M4/M16 rifles.
It was conducted during the Individual Carbine completion,
which not one of the entries stood up to the M855A1,
and none completed the endurance testing.
All of the entries were designed around the M855 ammunition and worked excellent and passed all the military testing internally at the manufacturers prior to military testing.
The bottom line is that as good as this round may perform, neither the U.S.
nor any of our allies have any rifles that will stand up to the high pressures of this round.

Feeding Problems

Due to the shape of the projectile, as well as the hardness,
feeding the M855A1 through a standard GI magazine caused problems.
The projectile was not introduced high enough to fully
clear the feed ramps on the barrel extension causing the hard sharp tip of the projectile to damage both the upper receiver, as well as the feed ramps, and end of the barrel extension.
This damage was done in just under 8,000 rounds of M855A1 usage.

Picture

To correct the feeding issue the Army developed a 4th generation Enhanced Performance Magazine (EPM).
The purpose of this new magazine is to change the feed angle of the feed lips
to introduce the tip of the cartridge higher so the tip of the cartridge would clear
the feed ramps preventing this damage.

Picture

The tan magazine is the EPM and the grey magazine is the standard issue Gen 3 tan follower magazine. Notice how much higher the M855A1 sits than the M855 to give more of a direct feed into the chamber.

So, in other words, if you do not want to damage your feed ramps, barrel extension or upper receiver you have to use the

EPM magazine identified by a blue follower and tan magazine body.
On a positive note, when tested, the new PMag Gen 3
magazines that have been adopted by the Marines,
is compatible with the M855A1 ammunition and does the same as the EPM for feeding.

Bolt Breakage

Due to the higher chamber and port pressure,
the rate of fire has been significantly increased.
The wear on the bolt is excessive, driven beyond the operating parameters
from which it was designed.
As many as 3,000 bolts have cracked in half.
Few bolts have been known to last a 6,000 round endurance test.
Of course, heavy round counts of fully automatic fire also can cause
severe wear or premature wear.

Picture

During the Individual Carbine trial, many rifles experienced these same types of bolt failures. Locking lugs have also broken off.
I do believe some of the enhanced bolts will last longer,
but not significantly longer.
This is again not a failure of the rifles, it is ammunition induced.
The ammunition drastically exceeds the design parameters of the 5.56x45mm ammunition specifications.

Barrel and Suppressor Failures

Due to the speed and pressure the barrels have had a drastic loss of life. Many engineers I speak to say it is up to 50% loss in barrel life.
Barrel life is a difficult thing to configure.
There are many factors that go into barrel life,
including full auto use, maintenance or lack thereof, corrosion or type of ammo used.
The M855A1 is at least an additional 200+ feed per second over the M855/M193 ball ammunition that the 5.56mm cartridge was designed around.
Fire cutting of the gas port is drastically increased,

which with use, the cyclic rate increases even further.

That higher cyclic rate causes, as we said, bolt failure,

as well as failures to extract due to the cartridge case having residual
pressure at the moment of extraction.
This results in the extractor sheering off the rim of the cartridge face,
leaving the cartridge in the chamber, breaking of the extractor,
as well as pre-mature wear of
the extractor spring, adding to overall extraction failure.
Failures have also been seen where gas leaks around the
projectile causing short stroking of the action. Due to all the mentioned velocity issues,
it has also been found that sound suppressors have a significantly shorter service life.

Claim the M855A1 Does Not Change M855 BZO

It was clear the exceptional accuracy of this M855A1 round was contrived.
The excellent groups shown by the Army did not come out of standard M16A4 and M4 carbines, but match Army Marksmanship Unit rifles.
My testing was done with a standard 14.5 inch M4 carbine with a Leupold optic.
There was a 1.5 inch shift in point of impact from one M855 2 shot group to a M855A1 2 shot group.
This would require a rezero in my opinion.
This was a repeatable process, both grouped similar.
The M855 average was 1.48 in and the M855 showed 1.30 in groups.
Nothing proved to be earth shattering.

Other Branches Refuse to Adopt the M855A1

Other branches, in particular the Marines, have refused to adopt this new round,
and justly so.
First, the overly hot round will not function properly in their M27 HK Infantry Automatic Rifles. This is an over gassed design from the start.
This additional pressure causes failures to extract and pre-mature parts breakage.
In other words, the reliability of this platform has been vastly compromised.
They are aware of the parts failure from this round and are not willing to subject their fleet of weapons to this.
They have their own preferred load called the MK318 SOST round which is a barrier blind round. It has excellent penetration,
as well as desirable ballistics that do not damage their weapons.
This round has been in use by them in the Global War on Terrorism.
It has drastic terminal improvement over the M855.
The Corps still issue the M855 as well.
The Air Force is continuing with M855 for the same reasons.
The Navy has a plethora of special rounds procured by them.
They will not use the M855A1. In my time in Afghanistan in 2011,
I saw soldiers from all branches,

and I asked them what they were using for rifle ammo, only Army personnel had the M855A1.

This leads us into congressional tension.

They are quite upset that all the branches are using different rifle ammunition for the same weapons platform.
When the military switched from M193 to M855, it was across the board.
Not now. Investigations have gone into why the other branches refused.
Clearly the ammunition is not suitable for any rifles in current production.
Although there is an increase in penetration, is environmentally friendly,
and appears to be more accurate, this ammunition is detrimental to any weapon it is put in.
The nearly 50% decrease in service life, in my opinion, is unacceptable.
The fact that this round is not compatible with our allies weapons is unacceptable.
The higher cost of the ammo is unacceptable, even though the
Army has increased the price of other ammunition to make the cost of the M855A1 look cheaper, is also unacceptable.

Conclusions of m855a1 for sale

I see a very interesting parallel with the M855A1 story as to the IMR vs.
Ball powder story of the Vietnam War. The rifle was designed for the IMR propellant,
which gave a rate of fire around 800 rounds per minute. And it worked as intended.
Now the Army switches to Ball propellant, causing the rifles rate of fire to increase
to in excess of 1000 rounds a minute.
This caused parts breakage, as well as failures to extract.
The Army was warned against this, but knowingly moved forward.
The intent was clear when Colt told the Army that the Ball propellant ammunition  pressures were too high; the rifles could not meet the cyclic rate requirement,

and the rifles shot too fast.

Rather than stop the use of ball propellant they told Colt to only use IMR loaded ammo for cyclic rate testing. Of course, once those rifles got to Vietnam,

the soldiers were issued ammunition loaded with ball powder.
Many died due to this decision and the Ichord Committee claimed the Army’s handling of the M16 rifle program was borderline
“Criminal Negligence”. Now we have the Army pushing another round,
which further increases pressure; designed with the knowledge of its
problems caused to the weapon and issuing it anyway.
Weapons are breaking and wearing prematurely, which is known by the Army,
and is such a problem that none of the branches will use the ammo.
It is drawing scary parallels to the M16 development in Vietnam.

And that history has clearly taught the Army nothing.

I see this as a good round “if” we had a weapon to fire it.

We don’t have such weapon.
What little benefit it offers is not worth destroying an entire fleet of M16A2/A4 and M4 carbines used by the U.S. military, and the cost which will go into frequent barrel and bolt changes.
The ammo is not worth the cost of having weapons fail in combat by either the troopers
not having the proper magazine, or their bolts breaking, or their bullets keyholing,
due to a worn out barrel in 3K short rounds.
The better alternative is the M855, as it keeps the barrel serviceable to
10,000 rounds or more on a properly maintained rifle.
It is a mistake having ammunition not compatible with our allies weapons.
This could cause major problems if we had to resupply an ally in
a bind and their weapons fail to function because they

don’t have an EPM or a Gen3 Pmag; also when this ammo causes parts breakage in their firearms.

Requirement
 Deliver an Environmentally Friendly
Cartridge with the same or better
performance
–Optimized for M4 Weapon System
–Army’s Replacement for M855
Status:
 Completed Low Rate Initial Production
(LRIP)
 Completed Production Qualification
Testing (PQT)
 Shipping to Theater
–2
Key Future Events:
 Moving rounds from Kuwait into Afghanistan
(1.1M)
 Additional rounds arriving in Kuwait late July
 STRATCOM implementation
 Getting info to Soldiers
 Correcting misperceptions
 Sharing info with Allies
M855
Summary of Benefits
 Environmental impact – lead free projectile
– Eliminates ~ 2,000 tons of lead from production
– Allows use of training ranges with restrictions
– Removes lead hazard from mfg environment
 Performance Benefits
– Consistent performance: not yaw dependant
– Significantly improved performance at
extended ranges
– Improved propellant – reduced flash
– Trajectory Match – No Soldier training difference
– Improved accuracy
M855A1
Most Tested Small
Caliber Round Ever,
Over 1M Rounds!
From
This
To
This
(Lead)
(Copper)
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
Distribution unlimited-Approved
for Public Release
Resulted in the M855A1 Enhance Performance Round
History of the Lead Free Program
Why Green?
– Montreal Protocols, Executive Order (1993),
EPA 17 List, AEC Study
– Some training ranges becoming lead restricted
– Army’s policy on environmental stewardship
– Expected tightening of future environmental
restrictions
– Public awareness of environmental concerns
– Cost of removing hazardous materials from
installations
Greening Efforts
– 5.56mm ball and tracer
– 7.72mm ball and tracer
– Green Primer across calibers
–3
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
Distribution unlimited-Approved
for Public Release
M855A1 EPR Benefits
–4
M855A1
 Performance Benefits
– Dramatically improves hard target performance
– Provides consistent effects against soft targets, CQB
performance
– ―Match‖ like accuracy – VERY ACCURATE
– No weight increase, improved propellant, reduced flash
– Trajectory Match—no Soldier training transfer difference
– Significant performance improvements in a 5.56mm
– Soft target performance similar to 7.62mm ball
– Hard target performance far better than 7.62mm ball
– Extremely effective against ALL target sets ( a true, general
purpose round)
 Environmental Impact
– Lead free projectile
– Eliminates ~ 2,000 tons of lead from production
– Allows use of training ranges with restrictions
– Removes lead hazard from mfg environment
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
Distribution unlimited-Approved
for Public Release
Comparison of M855A1 and M855
–5
M855
M855A1 Enhanced
Performance Round
Chart colors are for
comparison only,
both rounds meet their
respective requirements.
Soft
Target
Consistent Effects G R
Barriers
Car Window G G
Car Door G G
3/8‖ Steel G Y
Concrete Masonry Unit Y R
Soft Body Armor (24 layer Kevlar) G G
Accuracy
Wind Drift G G
Ranging Error G G
MOA G Y
Dispersion G G
Trajectory Match with M856 (Trace) G G
Propellant
Velocity G Y
Temperature Coefficient Y Y
Flash Suppression G R
M855A1
M855 remains a
VERY capable, all
purpose round!
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
Distribution unlimited-Approved
for Public Release
M855A1 Intermediate Barrier Performance
M855A1 Hits the Target Behind Barriers With the Penetrator and/or Slug
Car Door
Windshield
M855A1
Penetrator Penetrator
Cu Slug
Cu Slug
M855A1
Penetrator
Cu Slug
–6
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
Distribution unlimited-Approved
for Public Release
– M80, 7.62mm
can’t penetrate
at these ranges
M855A1
3/8‖ Mild Steel
Kevlar Fabric
M855A1 was tested out to
1000m and was never stopped. M855A1
Shot with the M4
M855A1 Penetration
–7
385m
M855A1 WILL Penetrate Some Body Armor Designed to Stop 7.62mm Ball
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
Distribution unlimited-Approved
for Public Release
M855A1 Hard Target Performance
Battle Barrier
Surrogate (3/8” steel)
Concrete Masonry
Unit
Results are for M4
(meters) 0 150 300 450 600
M855
M855A1
M855
M855A1
M855A1 has Significantly Improved Hard Target Performance
Battle Barrier
Surrogate (3/8” steel)
Concrete Masonry
Unit
Results are for M16
(meters) 0 150 300 450 600
M855
M855A1
M855
M855A1
M855A1 has Significantly Improved Hard Target Performance
–8
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
Distribution unlimited-Approved
for Public Release
EPR Accuracy
–9
Shot Placement is still the most important factor!
Accuracy testing shows that on
average, 95% of rounds will hit
within a eight by eight inch
target at a range of 600 yards
–8‖
600 Yards
While ammunition
accuracy is important,
nothing replaces good
marksmanship training.
–8‖
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
Distribution unlimited-Approved
for Public Release
M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round
STRATCOM
–10
 What all Soldiers need to know when using this round
– Dramatically improves hard target performance
– Provides dependable, consistent effects against soft
targets and CQB performance (no more ―Thru and Thrus‖)
– Significantly improves performance at extended ranges
– ―Match‖ like accuracy – VERY ACCURATE
– No weight increase, flash reduced, increased velocity
– Extremely effective against a wide variety of targets
(a true all purpose small caliber round)
– Not yet approved for use with the GREM
– Not yet approved for the M249 (Emergency use only
with magazine)
– A noticeable gap below the penetrator or ―spinning‖
tips are normal and do not impede performance in any way
Bronze Colored Tip
Noticeable Gap
Beneath
Penetrator
–M855A1 EPR
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
Distribution unlimited-Approved
for Public Release
Take-a-ways
 M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round (EPR)
– Environmentally friendly cartridge that performs significantly better
than any other military 5.56mm cartridge
– Represents a significant performance improvement in a 5.56mm bullet
• Hard target performance (steel) far better than 7.62mm ball
• Soft target performance similar to 7.62mm ball
– A true general purpose round optimized to a wide array of targets
– Significantly improved hard target performance at longer distances
– Provides consistent performance against soft targets (Yaw sensitivity)
– Uses a lead free projectile (unlike M855)
• Eliminates ~ 2,000 Tons of Lead from Production/Environment Yearly
• Allows Use of Training Ranges with Lead Restrictions
– Planned to replace M855 for the Army
– Fielding in summer 201

I see this as too risky for our troops to use with current 5.56mm weapons platforms.

We have seen this before in Vietnam and we know the disastrous consequences that
it can have on our troops.
The Army has all this information and is blindly moving forward,
while other branches are holding their hands up and saying “No way!”.
I believe the MK318 SOST round is a much more viable alternative
as a main service cartridge that gives all the benefits without compromising the
integrity of the weapons that shoot them.
I think the “green” lead free is a great theory but they need to do it with a proper cartridge that does not exceed specifications.
Picture

5 reviews for m855a1 For Sale | At Best Prices

  1. Vanammo

    very great customer service

  2. Vanammo

    Great content on m855a1 ammo

  3. Vanammo

    shoots so fast this bullet

  4. Vanammo

    Thanks, got my product shipped at the door

  5. Vanammo

    ammoravine is such a great service for m855a1 for sale. i love that

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Stay Connected

[mc4wp_form id="447"]

[mc4wp_form id="447"]

Courses

Company Info

Get in touch

EMAIL: Sales@ammofount.com

Address: 568 18 St E, Prince Albert, SK S6V 1H8, Canada

AMMOFOUNT.COM© 2021. All rights reserved.

You cannot copy content of this page