FMJ yaw and upset performance

[LR1955]

I would say that there are three types of evidence which can be taken into account:

Laboratory tests (there seems to be some sort of objection to testing ammo on live people, so substitutes like ballistic gel need to be used for comparison). Fackler and Roberts have both demonstrated the poor performance of 5.56mm.

The many attempts to improve the performance of 5.56mm, including MK262, MK318 SOST, M855A1 (and, of course, the 6.8mm Rem). If M855 were satisfactory, why bother to put in all this effort to improve on it?

Not necessarily, if there are also other reasons for considering a change (e.g. to get a lighter round than 7.62mm, and to get one standard round, as I mentioned). And not at all if you're adopting a new technology like LSAT, where you're starting from scratch with all-new guns, ammo and production lines anyway. Then you might just as well go for the best solution, which as ARDEC recommended would be 6.5-7mm, and as JSSAP seems to have accepted in rejecting 5.56mm LSAT. But we can't expect the US Army to go for an intermediate LSAT unless the performance of the calibre has already been demonstrated in conventional form.

Tony:

How about a citation for the Fackler and Roberts test, the ARDEC and the JSSP reports? If you can, include the page numbers.

You ask "If M855 were satisfactory, why bother to put in all this effort to improve on it?"

Show me were the issued M-855 failed to meet its requirements when it was tested and accepted in the early 1980's? You know that it did met the requirements set for it and that these requirements were based on ground war against the Soviets in Europe. The requirements changed, doctrine changed, training changed, and so we adapted.

And, instead of going through an immense RDTE process, we bought commercial bullets that had already been tested via the mechanism of capitalism. And, they work!

LR1955