Sorry, but I am not impressed. M855A1 EPR would make nice linked MG ammo, but is NOT my first choice for a carbine or rifle. It doesn’t help that the recent Big Army briefings on the topic are filled with misleading statements and outright falsehoods. For example, in the public briefing shown above:
Page 2 touts match like accuracy for M855A1 EPR, yet the acceptance standard allows for up to 5.5 MOA accuracy—hardly match like. In contrast, Mk318 has a 2 MOA acceptance standard.
Page 3 seems impressive, but fails to offer details.
Page 4 is worrisome, as it indicates that M855A1 EPR has a higher chamber pressure compared with current M855. Port pressure on the M4 is already too high, what is the increased chamber/port pressure of M855A1 EPR going to do to bolt life and barrel life on M4’s? How come Army ammo is only getting flash suppressed in 2010? Why wasn’t this incorporated for the past 50 years?
Page 5 is partially true, as M855A1 EPR is indeed less yaw dependent than M855, but then so is Mk318. The 7.62 mm comparison is a bit misleading; for example, to which version of M80 ball are they referring, the steel jacket or the copper jacket, as terminal performance is different.
Page 6 is highly inaccurate, as it states that both M855A1 EPR and M855 have good performance against car windows, yet this is patently untrue. Likewise it states that both M855A1 EPR and M855 offer good accuracy—this is not always correct, as some recent lots of M855 have been pushing 6 MOA. It also states that both M855A1 EPR and M855 have a trajectory match with M856 trace—this is not true, as all three cartridges offer different trajectories, as has been demonstrated by previous Doppler radar tracking and accuracy testing. Some Army sources have stated that units are NOT required to re-zero when transitioning to M855A1 EPR; this is a gross error of judgment that could result in needless fatalities.
Page 7 does not accurately reflect the trajectory differences between the various rounds due to the truncated scale—it would be better to provide the numerical data recorded when actually shooting the various cartridges side-by-side at different distances. Let’s take an M16A4 or M4 and set a target out at 500-600; then we will shoot 10 rounds of M855, 10 rounds of M856, and 10 rounds of M855A1 EPR and compare the POA/POI for each cartridge type––guess what, they will NOT be the same. So much for having the same trajectory…
Page 8 illustrates the POOR terminal performance characteristics of M855A1 EPR against automobile windshields—look how the projectile has fragmented into separate pieces after first hitting the windshield; it is galling that the briefing tries to make this sound like a good thing by claiming it increases the probability of a hit. True barrier blind projectiles do NOT come apart like M855A1 EPR. Notice that no actual gel photos or wound profiles are included.
Page 9 implies that 5.56 mm M855A1 EPR offers better terminal performance than a 7.62 mm projectile—this may be true when comparing EPR from 2010 against 1950’s era technology like M80 FMJ, but not if a true apples-to-apples comparison is made against a modern 7.62 mm cartridge. For example compare M855A1 EPR against M80A1 EPR or Mk319. Page 9 also states that M855A1 EPR can defeat soft Kevlar armor rated against handguns—yet most center rifle projectiles can defeat soft armor. It also implies that M855A1 EPR can also penetrate some Level III armor; this is true, as M855A1 EPR can defeat compressed polyethelene hard armor plates, of course current M855 already does that. What M855A1 EPR cannot accomplish is penetrating current eSAPI armor. If we go into combat against a true peer competitor nation who issues equivalent hard armor, M855A1 EPR is going to be useless.
Page 10: M855A1 EPR does penetrate steel and cinder block better than M855.
Page 11 has nothing to do with terminal ballistics, but is correct, as far as it goes.
Page 12: M855A1 EPR is generally more accurate than M855, but as noted, both share the same accuracy standard; if the Army is really believes M855A1 EPR is more accurate, why not adopt a tighter accuracy standard like as required in the Mk318 or Mk262 contracts?
Page 13 repeats the comments that M855A1 EPR offers better performance than M80 ball, but that is not a fair comparison, as previously stated.
The M855A1 EPR program is a damning indictment of the utter FAILURE of the Army procurement system to rapidly and effectively respond to the needs of our Nations troops—especially in time of war. This incomplete briefing is flawed at best, insulting at worst. Why has it taken over a decade and hundreds of millions of tax payer funds to develop what is essentially a product improved 1960’s era Bronze Tip bullet? How come M855A1 EPR costs twice as much as Mk318 and is also more expensive than even Mk262 and 70 gr Optimal/brown tip?
There are other serious and significant issues that are not touched on in this public briefing; suffice to say that there are good reasons why the Marine Corps and USSOCOM are issuing Mk318 Mod0 and not M855A1 EPR.