Capitol Armory ad

Army to switch to "green" bullets

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • M. Sage

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 21, 2009
    16,298
    21
    San Antonio
    Oh, and FWIW, M855 had serious problems with windshields. One of the big drives behind M855A1 was to fix that deficiency.

    I just had a WTF moment.

    Maybe I'm mistaken but the rounds are replacing the M855 rounds, correct?

    Things may have changed since I was in but as I recall 99% of the ammo we fired at the range was M193. The M855 was generally reserved for shooting people as I expect will be the same with the M855A1 rounds.

    So we will continue to blast the same amount of lead in to American soil while spending more money to make sure we don't pollute craplakistan all the while making the rounds LESS effective when the enemy is close.

    Am I getting this right?

    I don't think so. You were probably burning up old stocks of M193.
    DK Firearms
     

    London

    The advocate's Devil.
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Sep 28, 2010
    6,297
    96
    Twilight Zone
    They don't much expand, they maintain integrity and tumble. Military bullets are not really supposed to kill. We still fight from a 1930's mindset.

    Current 5.56 ammo has a very thin jacket and has a tendency to fragment violently. It can do more damager than FMJ .308, actually.

    I thought we were supposed to go to tungsten bullets like 10 years ago? All copper bullets reduced barrel life by half, BTW, so there's another major expense.
     

    556.45.12

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 8, 2013
    480
    1
    Houston, TX
    Increased cost of ammunition for no improvement in effectiveness.

    Could have sworn the article said that the rounds seemed to be LESS effective inside 150 yrds.

    Yes, the XM855A1 round... an even crappier, more expensive round made to replace the crappy rounds our troops are already using. I've also read that they're tougher on the guns. Maybe with hyper-burst it will actually be an effective round. LOL.
     

    556.45.12

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 8, 2013
    480
    1
    Houston, TX
    Word to your mother. A requirement for any politician to be able to vote on a military issue should have a mandatory 2 week stay in a red zone overseas to see what our boys are going through.
     

    M. Sage

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 21, 2009
    16,298
    21
    San Antonio
    In a projectile, lead is very toxic! By design!

    LOL, no. There are dudes walking around with bullets they caught in the '40s with no negative long term health effects. Not that long ago (ten years or less), I read about a guy who went to the doctor for an X-ray and everybody involved was surprised to find an old Japanese bullet lodged in the old man. He hadn't had any idea he was carrying it until an unrelated chest X-ray.

    Lead was/is chosen for bullets because it's relatively cheap, heavy (high specific gravity) and malleable.
     

    mikeofcontex

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 2, 2010
    708
    31
    Midlothian, TX
    LOL, no. There are dudes walking around with bullets they caught in the '40s with no negative long term health effects. Not that long ago (ten years or less), I read about a guy who went to the doctor for an X-ray and everybody involved was surprised to find an old Japanese bullet lodged in the old man. He hadn't had any idea he was carrying it until an unrelated chest X-ray.

    Lead was/is chosen for bullets because it's relatively cheap, heavy (high specific gravity) and malleable.
    Thankfully, for this old boy, the shooter "missed."
     

    Wabbit69

    Active Member
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 16, 2012
    229
    11
    Austin
    The way I see it, this is nothing to get worked up over. IIRC, the original M855 was designed with a couple of goals in mind. 1) to engage typical Warsaw Pact equipped solders with light body armor out to 400 yards from a 20 inch barrel 2) to reliably cycle the M249. Being able to meet both requirements necessitated design compromises. At the time, the goal was NOT to make an instant meat-puzzle of the enemy with one shot. I don't think that is possible with any small arm caliber. That's what artillery and air support is for. Poking a small hole in Comrade Commie, and letting him go to the rear and write home about how his party bosses let him down and how much getting shot sucks has some strategic military value.
    As is usual for the US Military, it turned out that the enemy and scenario that the brass and politicians envisioned were not what we would face. Unfortunately, it appears that the M855 does not always reliably yaw and fragment before it sails right through a mal-nourished, lightly clothed homicidal muslim fanatic, especially when launched from a 14.5 inch barrel at a reduced velocity. It appears that our soldiers have learned to adapt to the situation by learning how to poke multiple holes in Johny Jihad to make his people juice leak out faster, or placing the .22 hole is through the occular-cranial cavity.
    From what I see, the M855A1 is less about being "green" and more about adapting to the current mission and still being able to handle possible future missions like North Korea.
     
    Top Bottom