New U.S. Military Bullet Partially Revealed

The U.S. military is soon to field a new projectile in its standard issue 5.56 mm NATO cartridge. There are two purposes to the new projectile: increased performance and less toxicity in the environment (i.e., lead-free).


The new round is designated as the M855A1 and it shares identical weight and velocity to the current M855, 62-grain bullet at around 3,100 fps. The difference is the bullet’s construction, which while similar, is changed from the steel-shank, lead-core, copper-jacketed SS109 projectile of the M855 round.


The new A1 projectile is also tipped with a steel penetrator, but unlike the SS109, the steel tip is bronze coated to prevent corrosion (instead of being painted green) and features a more aerodynamic shape that called a “steel arrow head.”


Instead of a lead core behind the steel tip, the A1 projectile features a solid copper core. The copper jacket that encases both the cooper core and the “steel arrow” is of an unusual design with a “reverse drawn” process.


As we know from the Insider’s favorite hunting bullet, the Barnes X, a solid copper bullet of the same weight as a lead core bullet is going to be longer since lead is denser than copper. That’s true with the A1 bullet as well, although the Picatinny Arsenal which developed the M855A1 has not yet divulged specific details like the bullet’s length, ballistic coefficient or sectional density. Picatinny does, however, note that the M855A1 has a higher chamber pressure than M855, but does not provide a number.


In a prepared statement, the Dept. of Defense described the evolution of the new round:


“In post-combat surveys and field reports from Iraq and Afghanistan, most soldiers have indicated that the (M855) 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.”


The Insider is trying to procure a box of M855A1, but this will be tricky. When Colt engineers were invited to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds to test fire the new round in the Colt M4, they were told in no uncertain terms that the removal of a single cartridge, or even a spent casing, would result in criminal prosecution—no exceptions.


I was in the Colt factory earlier this week and Colt, even as a military contractor for the M4 rifle, still does not have any M855A1 for test firing.


If I come up with any… mum’s the word.


Share |

Comments

ADD YOUR COMMENT

Enter your comments below, they will appear within 24 hours


Your Name


Your Email


Your Comment

20 Responses to New U.S. Military Bullet Partially Revealed

Daniel AA wrote:
January 01, 2012

The fact that they are keeping this secret makes it clear to me this is PC (political contract) stuff. This ammo is inferior to the old stuff and they are hiding it. After all this is small arms ammo, not ICBMs we are talking about. In the first action the bad guys are likely to get at least a few rounds unfired ammo to check out. The only ones kept in the dark is the American people. My father was in the Marines in WWII and refered to himself as an 'inactive' marine until his death.

Vepr545 wrote:
May 23, 2011

This is just the fore runner to BAN all small arms ammo. They will claim "the US military uses it so it should be good for all" It is probably more expensive than traditional FMJ. Make no mistake my friends the ultimate goal is to make your gun and expensive club!

Re: "Thpbltblt & Bill K" wrote:
May 21, 2011

Man, you guys are worse than the Libs; jumping all over my case referring to myself as an Ex-Marine. FWIW, I was in the Corps (84' thru 90'), but to appease your aires of perfection, I'll start referring to myself as "FORMER MARINE"!!! Does that make you princesses happy??? Also, I didn't receive a "Baked Chicken Dinner" (BCD), my DD214 has "RE-1" all over it...

Bonhomme wrote:
May 20, 2011

I'm glad that the army is finally getting "PC" bullets. I thought surely they would get them after I first saw Maternity BDU's. Keep up the good work. Go USA, but do it with absolute political corectness.

mike wrote:
May 19, 2011

Oh yha lets worry about the detrimental effects of lead bullets on the earth. Not what effect Bullets have on people.we have been using lead bullet for hundres of years for war and hunting why worry about it now. Need to worry about how to not to make war and fix the U.S economy Period

Glen wrote:
May 19, 2011

Longer bullets have better down-range results, given the same weight as shorter bullets, I have heard. The penetrator helps with adobe buildings. Please don't trash a person for using "ex". We are all adults here, as this is an NRA related site, right? So forgive.

alan wrote:
May 19, 2011

there are NO detrimental effects of lead bullets on the environment, none period! Lead bullets do not poison ground water, the ground or earth is a FILTER. Green environmentalists are communists. Quit donating to and putting up with ALL these environmental organizations! They are the "extremists", not us conservative individualists.

Thpbltblt wrote:
May 19, 2011

Sure, there's such a thing as an "ex" Marine. It's one who got a bad conduct or dis-honorable discharge, or so my drill instructors told me. Everyone else is a "former" Marine.

Bill K wrote:
May 19, 2011

Ex-marine, bet you were not even in the service. No serviceman, any branch, would use that term. Go Army and all the other's.

ntrudr_800 wrote:
May 19, 2011

"Environmentally Friendly' ammunition? I-R-O-N-I-C-! Now this is stupid. Are nukes environmentally friendly? Are Rockets? Before we know it the US Army will be driving those dinky ugly 'Smart' cars with M240's on top. The MG will be larger than the SMART. And the US Navy will be using Submarines that run on Rainbows lol that is dorky. I can see it now, "Home intruder fatally shot by Environmentally Friendly ammunition. Two Whales and one Seal were saved in the long run." Will we all rest more peacefully now? This 'Green Movement is getting out of hand. More like 'Moronically Friendly US Leadership'

Ken wrote:
May 18, 2011

The environmental issues this round is "supposed" to solve are a bunch of horse pucky! (To put it nicely). This environmentally friendly round is gonna eat up some tax dollars where a much less expensive round could match it's performance. Indeed, didn't this article say that the 62 gr actually works just as well. If so, it appears the only reason for changing is to spend some money and appease some tree-huggers!

Edward wrote:
May 17, 2011

Well I am certainly glad that the military has made the decision to enhance weapons not only with tactical platforms, match grade barrels and triggers, but with the actual ammunition which plays a momentous role... Better bullet coefficients and a copper head should have better downrange terminal ballistics than a steel jacketed... Cant wait till they come out with aluminum oxide rounds or some liquid copper ones... A copper head and steel arrow is a blessing, in addition to the significantly higher pressure!

Carl J. Humphreys Sr. wrote:
May 17, 2011

Government often runs on personal greed.And 'special interests'with their special incentives almost have a vote on what our government does.I'm afraid this a the begining of banning ALL lead ammo,and pricing cartridges right out of the hands of "We the People".

Keith wrote:
May 17, 2011

It figures the government will provide a solution where there is no problem. What about replacing the 5.56 NATO Ball round with the 6.8 Rem? There is a fix to a problem!

viperrf16 wrote:
May 17, 2011

Haha! you said EX-marine! For shame! Foooor shame!

Steve Albright wrote:
May 17, 2011

I would like to see the cost comparison. I know that there will be no "cost-benefit-analysis" on this. Another "cure" lookin for a problem.

straighttalker wrote:
May 17, 2011

Any other time I would agree and say yes, cost more = bad. However this isn't some silly un-manned plane/rocket prototype or new computer monitor for the army's desk jockeys or more satellites. This is something that the ground soldier depends on. They are the heartbeat of the war and if they want a new round, they get a new round. Now this crap about lead free and being environmentally friendly is just that.. a bunch of crap. But if this is something that allows our boys to take a shot comfortably at 250 meters instead of 200 meters, or neutralize a hodgie with one shot instead of two, who cares about the cost. In comparison to the cost of some the things the military spends money on (ONE Apache Helicopter: about $20million), the cost increase of these rounds is negligible. Oh and by the way, our country sends billions of dollars every year to countries like haiti, iraq, israel, kenya, south africa, colombia, and sudan. I think if we're gonna shave some dollars off the budget, let's shave it off there, instead of the gear our soldiers get.

Bill in Tulsa wrote:
May 17, 2011

Yes indeed this will cost a lot more. @Increased Cost There is no such thing as an "ex-Marine" you probably are a want a be...smile

Pete wrote:
May 17, 2011

Of course it will cost more. And lots of politically connected business people will make more money from us taxpayers. That is the real reason for the change. I liked it better when the military was supposed to win wars instead of the modern version which is to ensure social equality in the ranks and protect our enemies from environmental lead pollution.

Increased Cost??? wrote:
May 17, 2011

On paper this round sounds great. However from a real world perspective, this round will impact the DoD's budget. Copper's value has increased greatly in the past several years; look at the number of copper thefts from new developments, HVAC components, etc... I'm not an expert in EPA matters, however I am an expert in matters related to finance (20+ yrs experience) and can tell you that the DoD will feel this round's impact (no pun intended) financially when it's issued to the Fleet. Sorry, the ex-Marine in me forgets there are other branches...