Congress Wants to Know Why Soldiers, Marines Don’t Use the Same Rifle Ammo

KyPlinker posted:

FWIW, my first experiences with 855A1 were in 2012 on deployment. I PCSed after that deployment to a new unit, and we shot A1 exclusively there. I never had, nor witnessed, any malfunctions relating to magazines or anything else. Accuracy was good as well. 

I think it was a dumb move considering some of the COTS options available, and I think that the services should all consolidate into one proven round, (I'll defer to Doc Roberts), but my personal experience, albeit anecdotal, didn't show any issues with the A1 at least. 

It is my opinion that the case I got was a bad lot. How, I don't know, because the ES on the velocity was the lowest I've ever clocked, and the tips didn't "spin" on 90% of the rounds I had, and they looked GOOD. I don't have a machine to balance the projectiles though, so they could have had a lot of "wobble". Some of my groups were 2MOA for 10 shots, and some were terrible. Average was 4.55. Velocity for a 10shot string from a 16.1" CHF DDM4 is as follows. All accuracy and velocity testing I did was used with this gun. It has proven to shoot damn near ANYTHING into 2.5MOA at the very worst, including XM556FBIT3, and any TSX bullet. Gold Dot from this gun hovers around 1 MOA. 10-shot groups, 100 yards, using a 4X Nightforce. For the record, it shoots MK318MOD0SOST into about 2-2.5MOA, across multiple lots of ammo.

3077
3056
3073
3037
3035
3077
3073
3069
3058
3035

ES: 42fps
SD: 17.5

AVG:3059fps

 

*Fired through SF 556-212 Suppressor. I have NOT found this suppressor to alter velocity or SD in any meaningful way with other ammo.

**I found the round to contain 25.7gr of SMP-842 powder.

 

 

 

 

WS6 posted:
Dorsai posted:

WS6,

Do a search on "stay in your lane".  Unless you've got significant, pertinent experience in this area and have the information to support your statements, better to read more, post less.  Based on your profile, your experience is civilian, non-LEO, non-Military, non-Government.  Knowledge based primarily on what you've read in other forums, internet commentary, etc.  is insufficient.

I have roughly a decade of experience paying taxes, a sum of which go to bullshit like the Crusader, these pistol trials, etc. So yes, this most certainly "is my lane".

That said, I freely admit that I am ignorant of the specific road quite a bit, and quite often at times, and am quite open to learning and improving my understanding. So far, my understanding is that throughout the last roughly 70 years, multiple studies have concluded that a bullet of 6.5-7mm at 25-2800fps or so is optimal, and time and time again, the military makes other choices. First it was the full-size .30's, even though the .276 was deemed technically superior. Then it was the 5.56x45, then we had the whole 6.8SPC deal, and again, when they put forth an improvement, we ended up with 2 "competing" ammunition designs, one on the ragged edge trying to meet some arbitrary terminal performance at distance (which they have backed off of as noted lower in the thread), etc.

 

I'm sorry, but to me, the US Taxpayer, it looks like a cluster. But you're right. What do I know? I have to balance my checkbook, so my situation is different, and I'm probably looking at things wrongly. However, when I DO have a wrongful understanding, and someone like you says "just stay in your lane (implication: I'm military and know what I'm talking about)", it sounds a lot like "fuck off...but please keep paying for this shit."

 

So...please explain to me why Liberty Ammunition's idea was stolen, and then how much had to be spent to get it to work for the military, when Liberty was using it just fine previous? I mean, that's what I'm irritated over. Couldn't have just stuck with the barnes 70gr that USASOC already uses the hell out of. Couldn't have just used MK318 that the Marines enjoy. No. Had to steal something, dick it up, un-dick it, and now...?

 

If I am out of my lane understanding-wise, then I'd appreciate clarification. Thanks.

WS6,

You are welcome to get commissioned in US Army, get promoted to the necessary rank, and fix all this....or perhaps, congress?

 

.276...we had piles of .30cal, so we stuck with it...saving your tax payer money.

6.8 was not a US Army program

People bitch we don't have the best, so we test for it and people bitch that it's a waste of money and what we have is good enough.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

 

----------------------------

"Good landing, good fight, and good luck" James M. Gavin 09Jul43

 "they say if it works, it's a good tactic...I say anything can work once" 

Looks like the Marines will bite the bullet and use the same rounds the Army does. 

Does it matter?  Maybe in 2% of hits.  We're buying millions of rounds a month and that adds up to a lot of money.

Remember, perfection is the enemy of good enough and the M885A1 is killing a lot of bad guys.

Does anyone have any gouge on the purported reliability issues of the M885A1 in the M27 or is it a figment of someones imagination?

....

https://kitup.military.com/201...nd-general-says.html

Marine Corps Will Likely Adopt Army 5.56 Rifle Round, General Says

 
The M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round [Photo Credit: U.S. Army Photo)The M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round (Photo Credit: U.S. Army Photo)

After repeated urgings from Congress to move to a common rifle round with the Army, Marine Corps officials told lawmakers Tuesday that they’re getting close to being able to do so.

The Marine Corps continues to use M855 ammo for their M16A4 and M4 5.56mm service rifles, instead of the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round the Army uses for its rifles.

The problem, Marine officials have said, is that the newer round causes problems with the Marines’ M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, with tests indicating use of the round with the IAR results in reliability and durability issues.

But the Marines recently took a step that indicates the service is becoming more comfortable with the Army round. Lt. Gen. Robert Walsh, commander of Marine Corps Combat Development Command, told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Corps had sent the Army round to Helmand province, Afghanistan with a 300-Marine advisory element that deployed in April.

“The good news with that round … specifically the Army 855A1, is much better at penetrating armor,” Walsh said. “So that’s a good reason to go with that.”

Walsh said the Marines are also looking at the possibility of going with a U.S. Special Operations Command round, the MK 318, which offers better accuracy than the M855 round. The Marine Corps has used the SOCOM round in various capacities since officials scrapped plans to field the M855A1 round in late 2009.

Testing of the M55A1 round at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland was expanded to include the M27 and M16A4 rifles last March, Military.com reported in December. And that testing effort is now expected to wrap up next month, Brig. Gen. Joseph Shrader, commander of Marine Corps Systems Command, told the panel.

The testing examines performance, stopping power, effect on the durability of the weapons, and the impact of the flatter trajectory of the M855A1 round compared to the M855, which may require adjustments to Marine Corps range training and safety measures.

“Those four areas are what we’re looking at for testing to inform us to make a decision for how we go forward,” he said.

Maintaining separate caches of rifle ammunition for the Army and Marine Corps engenders waste and inefficiency, as lawmakers have repeatedly complained to the services. In the 2017 defense budget bill, Congress once again pushed for a common round, asking the secretary of defense to produce a report explaining why the different rounds were still being used.

But that may not be the case for much longer.

“We’re working through reliability things in testing, but we will make some adjustments from that, and I think in the end our Marines will have a much better capability when we’re done with it,” Walsh said.

 

 

....

 

 

 

 

....

Sincerely,

 

Trajan Aurelius

 

 

When violence is the local language, be fluent.

 

"It makes no difference what men think of war," said the Judge.  "War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone.  War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him.  The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner.  That is the way it was and will be.  That way and not some other way.” Cormac McCarthy, "Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West"

I'm cynical and not a ballistics guy, maybe a bad combo to comment. But I have to wonder if the choice of a round that shortens weapon life over an equally effective one that doesn't is the result of a Congress that knows little about what they legislate other than which lobbyist contributes the most.

Update from Military.com:

https://www.military.com/kitup...und-replacement.html

Marines Working with the Army on 5.56mm Rifle Round Replacement

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. -- A senior Marine Corps official confirmed today that the service is lockstep with the Army's effort to search for a rifle round more potent than the current 5.56mm round.

For months, senior Army officials have been telling Congress that the current 5.56mm Enhanced Performance Round is not potent enough to penetrate enemy body armor plates similar to U.S. military-issue rifle plates such as the Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert, or ESAPI.

As a solution, the Army is experimenting with a plan to replace its M249 squad automatic weapon and M4 carbine with futuristic weapons that fire a 6.5mm case-telescoped round or something that falls between a 5.56mm and a 7.62mm round.

The Marine Corps, which recently decided to buy more M27 5.56mm Infantry Automatic Rifles, has not publically echoed the Army's concern with 5.56mm until now.

"We are working the Army; we have looked at the 6.5mm Creedmoor with the Army and [Special Operations Command]," Brig. Gen. Joseph Shrader, commander of Marine Corps Systems Command, told Military.com at the annual Sea-Air-Space exposition Wednesday.

"We are lockstep with them looking at a new round."

Shrader, however, said he did not know if the effort would mean a new infantry weapon for the Marine Corps.

Lt. Gen. John Murray, deputy chief of staff for Army G8, told Congress in February that the Army already has a science and technology demonstration weapon, made by Textron Systems.

The working 6.5mm prototype has evolved out of Textron's light and medium machine guns that fire 5.56mm and 7.62mm case-telescoped ammunition developed under the Lightweight Small Arms Technology program.

Over the last decade, the Army has invested millions in the development of the program, which has now been rebranded to Textron's Case-Telescoped Weapons and Ammunition.

While the Textron weapon is "too heavy," Murray said the Army has opened the effort up to industry to come in and develop new prototypes for testing.

The Army had planned on fielding a the new Next Generation Squad Weapon by 2025 or 2026, but the service has now accelerated the effort to have some kind of initial capability by 2022 or 2023 at the latest, Army officials say.

Regards.

Mark

Formerly known as ML

Bill, Idaho posted:

Pardon my ignorance, but what the hell is a "telescoped" round?   Does that simply imply you have to use a scoped rifle to use it?

Telescoped ammunition is an ammunition design in which the projectile is partially or completely enveloped by the propellant. Examples include ammunition for both hand weapons and artillery. Some telescoped ammunition is also caseless.

Telescoped ammunition has advantages in comparison with traditional ammunition cartridges. Telescoped ammunition cartridges can have reduced overall length with similar ballistics to a comparable mass traditional round. Also, telescopic cartridges may avoid the risk of damage to the projectile during the loading process.

Cased telescoped ammunition for the LSAT light machine gun has reached technology readiness level 7.[1] In August 2013, AAI Corporation was awarded a $US2.05 million contract to continue developing parts of the US LSAT program. Part of the contract is to further refine 5.56mm cased telescoped ammunition, and develop 7.62mm cased telescoped cartridges.[2]

The term is using the mechanical meaning of telescoped, which means one thing slightly to completely inside another, and generally able to slide in and out. In which case conventional ammo is also telescoped as the neck holds the bullet (vs muzzleloading guns or artillery with separate charge, where the bits are simply stacked). But in future-ammo-development circles it always (AFAIK) now means what I have in the past seen called "fully telescoped" or, the bullet is hidden, all the way inside the case. 

(edited to reduce duplication). The photo above with the black cylinders: are all cartridges, the non-pointy ones just have the bullet fully telescoped, inside, the case.

Here's a fully telescoped round cutaway on top of some linked telescoped ammo to show what is going on inside it.

Video PPT on LSAT including a tiny bit on the ammo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...=1&v=WlM8IHij6Hs 

The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life. – Theodore Roosevelt

 

Joined: 19NOV2004   Location: Mission, Kansas

Add Reply

Likes (3)
JarHeadTimMOJONIXONJS7SFGA
Copyright Lightfighter Tactical Forum 2002-2019
×
×
×
×
×