I appreciate the information. I think I understand what you are saying about the issuance of the ammo. I had thought about trying the "civilian version" of those myself when I saw some for a good price once upon a time, but my 1-in-9 twist AR just doesn't stabilize the heavier grain/longer bullets.E.Marquez wrote:In 5.56... Mk 262 has performed better for me and those I was able to issue it to..K.Mooneyham wrote: So, I am curious as to which round you, in your personal opinion only (because I understand that you cannot speak in any official capacity on behalf of the US Army), believes to perform better under the conditions you have encountered in the field? I've heard a lot of hype, both for and against the new round, so its just for personal information.
BUT.. it has been said by more than one senior commander and their legal team.. those rounds can not be issued to the masses. Last time it came up.. it was deemed, ok to issue to designated marksmen down to the lowest level.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Army decides to put environment first, dead soldiers second”
- Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:19 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Army decides to put environment first, dead soldiers second
- Replies: 21
- Views: 3510
Re: Army decides to put environment first, dead soldiers sec
- Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:38 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Army decides to put environment first, dead soldiers second
- Replies: 21
- Views: 3510
Re: Army decides to put environment first, dead soldiers sec
So, I am curious as to which round you, in your personal opinion only (because I understand that you cannot speak in any official capacity on behalf of the US Army), believes to perform better under the conditions you have encountered in the field? I've heard a lot of hype, both for and against the new round, so its just for personal information.E.Marquez wrote:baldeagle wrote:In case those two articles don't convince you, perhaps this will.
http://www.armytimes.com/article/201111 ... ne-bidding" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Just what you want in the field. A weapon that requires more cleaning and parts replacement just to maintain functionality. Now each soldier will need two weapons; one to shoot with and one down for maintenance - and a mallet and an ultrasonic cleaner too - solar powered I suppose. And with 62,000 - 67,000 psi rounds, barrels will have to be replaced more often as well, bolts will break more often, firing pins will wear out prematurely, pistons will clog with filthy ammo gasses and bullet setback will lead to catastrophic failures, meaning they need to train more armorers to keep up with the demand for parts replacement - while slogging through the Afghani deserts miles from a shop. Great job, Army!The official said he was not surprised because the propellant in green ammo is "so filthy" some manufacturers have needed an ultrasonic cleaner and rubber mallet to get a bolt out after firing only a few thousand rounds.
So, Marquez, wanna tout how great a round the M855A1 is now?Again, Hyperbole..Still.Army decides to put environment first, dead soldiers second
Feel free to recount the fire fight you were involved in or read about where an M4 user fired a few thousand M855A1 rounds?
Since that is not reality,, the truth is even basic user level cleaning of the weapon after real typical use makes this mythical rubber mallet needed to get the bolt group out,, wait for it...Hyperbole.. just like the made up headline you added to this thread..not even a quote from the nonsense article you posted it from.
It's nonsense, made up from folks that have NO experience, but claim expertise by way of second or third hand reports.
As for your false assertion that I claimed the M855A1 was "great " please point to where I said that in anything I have ever posted here, or anywhere. I have three user names since the mid 80's bronco78, bigbronco78, E.marquez .. Please copy and paste, then highlight where I said what you stated I did..
Thanks