U.S. Army Issues New M855A1 Ammo to Troops in Afghanistan

U.S. Army Issues New M855A1 Ammo to Troops in Afghanistan

bulletin.accurateshooter.com

The U.S. Army has begun shipping its new, improved 5.56×45 cartridge, the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round, to U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The Army will take delivery of over 200 million rounds of the new M855A1 ammo in the next 12-15 months, and soldiers in Afghanistan will begin using M855A1 ammo in the summer of 2010. The new round replaces the current M855 cartridge used by U.S. troops since the early 1980s.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The Major could only be more thrilled if the 5.56mm round was dropped in it's entirety. There is no doubt that the new 62gr bullet will perform better across the spectrum, make all those hippie tree huggers happy because no lead is used, but it's a stop gap at best. what this man's army needs is a new round and a well maintained new weapon to put it in. The Major has long given up on writing Santa Claus for new wool socks, and that annual birthday wish for a olive drab burlap living room set has been put on the back burner. Even the Major has to makes sacrifices, and the aforementioned sacrifices should more than qualify for a 6.5mm ball round in a modular weapons package that can fill all the small arms needs of the Army.

The Major has been briefly assuaged.

Dismissed.

bulletin.accurateshooter.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Hopefully this new round will help - and agreed that they need to do something.

Previous to this they had actually been re-issuing M14's in some cases as the current weaponry just wasn't up to the job.

Army’s Quick Fix for Afghanistan Range Deficit: 5000 M14 Enchanced Battle Rifles

The M14 Enhanced is designed to eliminate the “range gap” detailed in Major Thomas Ehrhart’s widely-read 2009 study Increasing Arms Lethality in Afghanistan.

A report which asserted that 50 percent of Army engagements in Afghanistan occur with the enemy attacking at 300 meters or beyond, while more than 80 percent of soldiers in an infantry company are equipped with weapons that can’t touch the enemy beyond that range.

the US armed forces need to go back to the 2 best weapons ever issued m1903a1 and the m1 grand, m14 would be ok if it used the 30-06 round and did away with the nato round, and yes i did have them very good hunting rifles, i know people will complain abut the weight but that can be reduced by replacing the wood stocks with synthetic ones, one shot one kill, i have seen the videos of our boys, troops spray fire and the bad guy sit and pink pink pink, only in them news footage do you see the bad guy use full auto, we need to re train our troops, on shot one kill, and in order to that we need to rearm them with the right tools, yes we do have the rem 700, the SAW the M60, the bmg 50, and few others that are ok for support weapons, but i am talking about front line, "in your face, reach out and touch something", or in this case someone, to me the m16 m4 and the hole line of 223 243 22 5.56, is just a target gun, it does not have the take down stay down power at long range nor at close range, that is why it has a three round burst, an 06 and its line of 30 cal has that in one round rate of fire, 180 gr boat tail compared to a 60 gr, well there is no comparison, i know the TPTB will have a field day with this but that is just my 02 cents, one shot one kill , take down stay down! the way they could do this (just thinking about it ) take a Enfiled mk4 m14 m1 and you would have it, the length/weight of the mk4, rate of fire of the m14, the round and turn bolt of the m1 or B A R, have it 20 30 60 round clip, with the synthetic stock, you would have one kick @$$ weapon system. if i had the resources i would make it but i do not have the funding nor the know how it is just a thought i would like to see become a real.

Question?

If 50% of our troop's battles occur at a distance of 300m or greater, can our enemies hit us with AKs at that range? Is the AK still the most used weapon by our enemies? Have they been found with other rifles?

Only part that interested me was "The Army will take delivery of over 200 million rounds of the new M855A1 ammo in the next 12-15 months". So we will be there at least another year per this notice yet the question still remains.

If this war jumped to Iraq and soon to Iran then WTF we still in Afghanistan???

Oh yea, completely forgot we will make perminant residence there to maintain the poppy plants!


And so many in my country wonder why we are hated.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by robbinsj]

The search for the perfect balance of killing power goes on...
It is pretty obvious that our troops should have a variety of weapons to be issued in accordance with the wars and terrains we fight in....
If the 30:06 is so great, how come the sniper weapons are chambered for 308?
The army brags non stop about its sniper weapon....issure more of them if the range is the problem,
Perhaps the new round will make a slight difference, but like tha man says its only a stop gap.
Automatic fire is highlu over rated .....
Not all the platoon should be armed with full auto weapons anyways...
The mil/ind complex will no doubt go on making and obsoleting individual weapons for a good long time yet....continuously providing the perfect weapon to the troops (for the LAST war)not the one they find themselves in......

Originally posted by tooo many pills
Question?

If 50% of our troop's battles occur at a distance of 300m or greater, can our enemies hit us with AKs at that range? Is the AK still the most used weapon by our enemies? Have they been found with other rifles?

If an AK is put in capable hands it can be a very deadly weapon even at that range. The problem for the enemy is that 99% of them don't know how to even aim their weapon properly. they for the most part spray and pray. All that does is waste ammo and gives your position away more times than not. I am sure the major would even tell you...that one of the first things our troops are taught is how to properly aim and pick your targets as well as properly care for your weapon.

Yea!!! new kill toys wonders how the first human will feel when it penetrates their fragil skin and burst another organ HOW GREAT OF A WORLD SATAN HAS CREATED. He makes many kill each other and then teaches them to actually spend time making better ways to send him dead souls as well as incorporate new failed souls into his army. WISH THE BIG PICTURE WILL HURRY AND BE SHOWN TO ALL IF YOU ONLY KNEW WHO YOU WILL BE STANDING NEXT TOO SMMFH...........

reply to post by Major Discrepancy


The Illusive man thinks this is a intresting development
what makes these rounds better then whats being used now?
its 300m wouldnt it be effected by weather and so forth on its power and accuracy?

i am a noob at weapons


and yes i am kind of mocking the third person typing :p

Originally posted by stirling
If the 30:06 is so great, how come the sniper weapons are chambered for 308?

The .30-06 bullet is .308 caliber (same as the .270). Without getting into the specifics, each has it's strong points. The nearly 1/2" longer .30-06 case is capable of holding more powder and firing heavier bullets (220gr vs 200gr max for .308) with slower burning powder at slightly higher velocity. I suspect that the switch from .30-06 was made for weight savings.

They needed a steel core round instead of the ball ammo. 5.56 x 45 is so small of a round it has to have a hard core to penetrate anything of substance. It works great in short range jungle or forest engagements but not so well in the mountains of Afghanistan where a typical shot is in excess of 400 meters.

I have sub sonic 22 rounds that are 60 grains. This one is what 62 grains. Pretty small and light weight round for mountain or desert shooting.

The Taliban are often shooting back with old Mosin Nagants firing the much larger 185 grain rounds and more hard hitting 7.62 x 54 rimmed steel core ammunition. These reach out easily to 500 meters easy and still have about 3/4 of a ton of energy at impact.

The Taliban also have a lot of old 180 grain 303 British they are shooting back with and those have over 850 lbs of energy at 500 yards.

reply to post by bekod


Really?!?!?!? Those weapon systems are obsolete to say the least. While the m14 may have some service life in specific situations, even it has seen better days. A better round might provide the solution, but in many cases, better training may be an advantage. Marines in contrast to Army Soldiers, learn to fire their weapons at ranges up to 500 meters. While the Marine Corps uses M16s, and the Army uses M4s, they are essentially the same weapon.

In any case, hopefully this proves to be as good as everyone thinks, but in the end its just a bullet.

65gr vs 180gr vs 220gr vs 100 gr, now which one would you chose and why, also 590 fps. 3000fps, 900fps or1320fps of these numbers which has the better take down, finely what is the difference of the 30 06, 308, 303, 303 Brit and 30cal, if you are to hit at target at 1700, which round would you use, and why. i am just wondering what type of ammo you would use there is no right or wrong true or false and pleas no si fi weapons or the "i would use phase particle blaster" i would like to keep this in real world use it now form, thank you for your input and feed back, it has been a few years sense i played with ammo and weapons i am in to black powder it is a take your time sport and less expensive than case shooting, i should say cap and ball, for you that do not know there are 4 types of black powder weapons cap and ball, flint match lock and 209 in line.

reply to post by CornerTech
well i am old school and old is some times better than new i happen to like obsolete out dated , and no longer used things , you tend to be a bit more respectful of them and treat them better, and yes the parts are still made and yes the m1 is still around as well as the m1903, just not issued for front line use. The m14 is making a come back , i have not heard nor know if it still has its problems, the 2 biggest problems was with weight and the amount of rounds one could carry, the others were, rounds per minute, field maintenance, the number of rounds in mag, recoil, and how adaptable is the weapon, optics stock mod, folding, collapsible, long, short, full and pistol, ever seen a m 16 with a 12' barrel and no shoulder stock? and 30 round clip

reply to post by bekod


The only rifle that I shoot that has any lethality and accuracy at 1,700 yards is a custom 700 Rem action with a 30" Hart barrel chambered .338-300. I shoots a 300 gr. SBT. Muzzle velocity is 2,900 fps. At 1,700 yards it still carries enough energy to pass thru a deer. I have not run LoadBase on this round so I do not know how much energy it has at 1,700. A lot.

The next step down is a Remington Sendero SFII chambered in 7mm Rem Magnum. At 1,150 yards it still has 499 ft/lbs of energy with a 168gr Berger VLD. Muzzle velocity is 3100 fps

The next step down is a Remington Tactical XP chambered for .308. With a 190 gr. Berger VLD and a muzzle velocity of 2,900 fps it has 490 ft/lbs of energy at 1,065

A also have a Tac XP chambered for .223 but I haven't had the time to shoot this rifle enough to know what it's limitations are. Compared to the other 3 it's not a long range weapon.

IMHO- If you're not going to pony up for a custom rifle, the best deal going (from Remington) is the Sendero SFII in 7mm Rem Mag. I added a muzzle break and recoil dropped significantly. A 10 year old can shoot it (and has) with no ill affects. I also added a Jewell trigger set 1.25 pounds. Actually all of my rifles have that trigger installed. I'm not as excited about the Tac XP's. They shoot ok but, like the VTR, I think they are going take some break in time and they are not going to match the Sendero's accuracy. The Sendero routinely shoots 1/4 MOA and much less groups at 100 yards. No more than 1/2 MOA at 300 - 600 yards. And sub-MOA at 1,000 yards (all from the bench). It took 10 rounds to break it in vs 500 rounds for the VTR. I haven't had the time to work on the Tac XP's so I don't want to speculate on their break in time.

One last thing- The M1 Garand is a phenomenal rifle that has withstood the test of time. I think it's achilles heel in todays battlefield is it's weight.


[edit on 7/1/2010 by Mike6158]

The problem is not so much the size of the round, it's combination of the short barrel of the m4 and the FMJ round. The m4 is a cqc weapon being used for long distance fighting.

The m16 has a 20" barrel which results in higher velocities. The m4 with it's 14.5 in barrel doesn't allow the round to reach a high enough velocity to fragment much past 150 yards or so. Maybe 200 if you're lucky. Without this fragmentation the lethality of the 5.56 round is greatly reduced. It will just punch a clean little hole in you.

The mistake is using a cqc weapon for long distance fighting. I guarantee, no matter who says that the 5.56 is a wimpy round, that you would NOT want to get hit with it within it's fragmentation range. Go to a longer barreled weapon and this range is increased.

Go to an 18" barrel and hollow points and see how many of the enemy run away after being shot. Yeah, I know the Hague. The countries in the middle east we are fighting in are not signatories so use whatever is necessary.

Originally posted by tooo many pills
Question?

If 50% of our troop's battles occur at a distance of 300m or greater, can our enemies hit us with AKs at that range? Is the AK still the most used weapon by our enemies? Have they been found with other rifles?

If they are using a .308 caliber, then yes. It far outreaches the .223. That is why any SHTF rifle a person should buy or look into should be a .308. What good is your weapon if the person shooting at you can hit you at 600 meters when you can only shoot to around 400 without a major drop.

Here is an example:

www.youtube.com...



[edit on 1-7-2010 by Bonified Ween]

Hi All

I can't profess to know much about this topic but arent the weapons and rounds our guys are fighting with designed to injure rather than kill?

I had read somewhere that it takes at least two men to look after one injured man so this effect is desirable in an all-out war

However I guess in the sort of battles our guys are fighting they would want something with more stopping power and better accuracy at range.

I would be interested in your thoughts.

Originally posted by LightFantastic
Hi All

I can't profess to know much about this topic but arent the weapons and rounds our guys are fighting with designed to injure rather than kill?

I had read somewhere that it takes at least two men to look after one injured man so this effect is desirable in an all-out war

However I guess in the sort of battles our guys are fighting they would want something with more stopping power and better accuracy at range.

I would be interested in your thoughts.

I'll ask my buddies son what he thinks (3 Iraq tours) but the thought of "designed to injure rather than kill" cracks me up. I think it's safe to say that the point of shooting an enemy is to kill them.