Does anyone have any studies/papers/videos/anecdotes/advice on the terminal performance of M855 compared to M193? I'm specifically curious about if M855 compares more and more favorably as barrel length decreases.
Just ask LLM.
>>64589673llms hallucinate shit all the time. you're a retard if you blindly trust them. you need to use them to find sources to read and interpret yourself.
>>64589661That's the point of m855. M193 needs a 20in barrel to penetrate to standard and to fragment properly for ideal wound characteristics. M855 has a steel core that allows penetration to meet standard, and have acceptable wound characteristics, as while it is less likely to explosively fragment, it does tumble and yaw shortly after penetrating tissue. M855 should not be mistaken for armor penetrating M995, as the core of M855 is only intended to penetrate barriers such as sheet metal, light masonry, or wood. M855A1 was developed to compensate for the reduced wounding effects of M855 compared to M193, and achieves this by significantly increasing pressure to near proof-load levels, which allows the projectile to retain the explosive fragmentation characteristics of M193 with the benefit of improved barrier penetration at all ranges. Armorers have reported that consistent use of M855A1 can reduce barrel life to as little as 3000 rounds.
>>64589676Gemini provides sources you can follow to confirm.
>>64589680Forgot to point out that M855.was designed to perform as I described from a 14in barrel, as opposed to M193 being designed for a 20in barrel.
>>64589680I'm assuming that M855 would perform better, by losing less velocity and being less likely to be deflected, in dense foliage, for example?Also, would it perform acceptably (ie penetrate while remaining lethal and at least somewhat accurate) against tempered glass, like a car windshield?
>>64589772That is correct. A major shortcoming of M193 was that it was easily deflected/stopped by light cover when fired from shorter barrels, as well as losing its wound characteristics. M855 has an inferior wound profile, but better penetration and less deflection through light cover.
>>64589684so why not just not fucking use it. If you have to go into all its sources to make sure its not delusional.
One much less discussed thing is that proper m855 is better at distance than m193. Western Yuro SS109 are very accurate at 500yds still.
>>64589661M855 and M193 have virtually identical performance terminally, the US Army did tests and found that simply shooting someone multiple times or doing "failure to stop" drills and wait until M855A1 came into service.
