5.

56×45mm NATO
The 5.56×45mm NATO (official NATO
5.56×45mm NATO
nomenclature 5.56 NATO, commonly
pronounced "five-five-six") is a rimless
bottlenecked centerfire intermediate cartridge
family developed in the late 1970s in Belgium
by FN Herstal.[5] It consists of the SS109,
L110, and SS111 cartridges. On 28 October
1980, under STANAG 4172, it was
standardized as the second standard service
rifle cartridge for NATO forces as well as many
non-NATO countries.[5][6][7] Though they are
not identical, the 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge
family was derived from and is dimensionally 5.56×45mm NATO with measurement, left to right:
similar to the .223 Remington cartridge Bullet, case, and complete cartridge
designed by Remington Arms in the early Type Rifle, carbine, DMR, and
1960s. LMG
Place of origin Belgium
Service history
History
In service 1980–present
In 1954, the larger 7.62×51mm NATO rifle Used by NATO, Japan, South Korea,
cartridge[8] was selected as the first standard Taiwan, Australia, Israel
NATO rifle cartridge. At the time of selection other major non-NATO allies
there had been criticism that the recoil power Production history
of the 7.62×51mm NATO, when fired from a Designer FN Herstal
handheld lightweight modern service rifle in
Designed late 1970s–1980
full automatic mode, did not allow for
sufficient control, so the automatic follow-on Specifications
shots would not hit the intended target but Parent case .223 Remington (M193)
scatter around it.[9] Case type Rimless tapered, bottleneck
Bullet diameter 5.70 mm (0.224 in)
The British had extensive evidence through
Land diameter 5.56 mm (0.219 in)
their own experimentation with intermediate
cartridges since 1945, and were on the point of Neck diameter 6.43 mm (0.253 in)
adopting the .280 (7 mm) cartridge when the Shoulder diameter 9.00 mm (0.354 in)
selection of 7.62×51mm (.308) as the NATO Base diameter 9.58 mm (0.377 in)
standard was made. The FN company had also Rim diameter 9.60 mm (0.378 in)
been involved in the development of the .280
Rim thickness 1.14 mm (0.045 in)
round, including developing a version of the
FN FAL in .280.[10] Concerns about the recoil Case length 44.70 mm (1.760 in)
and overall effectiveness of 7.62 mm were Overall length 57.40 mm (2.260 in)
overruled by the US, and the other NATO Case capacity 1.85 cm3 (28.5 gr H2O)
nations accepted that standardization was more Rifling twist 1 in 7 in (178 mm) or 1 in
important than the selection of a cartridge that 9 in (229 mm)
was otherwise ideal.[5] Primer type Small rifle

The development of the cartridge that Maximum pressure 430.00 MPa (62,366 psi)
eventually became the .223 Remington (from (EPVAT)
which 5.56mm NATO would eventually be Maximum pressure 380.00 MPa (55,114 psi)
developed) would be intrinsically linked to the (SCATP 5.56)
development of a new lightweight combat rifle. Ballistic performance
The cartridge and rifle were developed as one
Bullet mass/type Velocity Energy
unit by Fairchild Industries, Remington Arms,
and several engineers working toward a goal 3.56 g (55 gr) XM193 993 m/s 1,755 J

developed by U.S. Continental Army FMJBT (3,260 ft/s) (1,294 ft⋅lbf)

Command (CONARC). Early development 4 g (62 gr) SS109 948 m/s 1,797 J
work began in 1957. A project to create a FMJBT (3,110 ft/s) (1,325 ft⋅lbf)
small-calibre, high-velocity (SCHV) firearm 4 g (62 gr) M855A1 961 m/s 1,859 J
was created. Eugene Stoner of Armalite was FMJBT (3,150 ft/s) (1,371 ft⋅lbf)
invited to scale down the AR-10 (7.62mm) 4.1 g (63 gr) DM11 856 m/s 1,796 J
design. Winchester was also invited to FMJBT (2,810 ft/s) (1,325 ft⋅lbf)
participate.[5][11] The parameters that were 4.1 g (63 gr) GP 90 851 m/s 1,679 J
requested by CONARC: FMJBT (2,790 ft/s) (1,238 ft⋅lbf)

.22 caliber Test barrel length: 508 mm (20.0 in)

Bullet exceeding supersonic speed at Source(s): NATO EPVAT testing, QuickLOAD, SAAMI,
500 yards (457 metres) [11] C.I.P.[1][2][3][4]
Rifle weight of 6 pounds (2.72
kilograms)
Magazine capacity of 20 rounds
Select fire for both semi-automatic and fully automatic
use
Penetration of US steel helmet through one side at
500 yd (457 m)
Penetration of 0.135 inches (3.43 millimetres) steel plate
at 500 yd (457 m)
Accuracy and ballistics equal to M2 ball ammunition
(.30-06 Springfield) out to 500 yd (457 m)
Wounding ability equal to M1 carbine[5]
Springfield Armory's Earle Harvey lengthened the .222 Remington The 7.62×51mm NATO and
cartridge case to meet the requirements. It was then known as the 5.56×45mm NATO cartridges
.224 Springfield. Concurrently with the SCHV project, Springfield compared to an AA battery
Armory was developing a 7.62mm rifle. Harvey was ordered to
cease all work on the SCHV to avoid any competition for
resources.
Eugene Stoner of Armalite (a division of Fairchild Industries) had
been advised to produce a scaled-down version of the 7.62mm
AR-10 design. In May 1957, Stoner gave a live-fire demonstration
of the prototype of the AR-15 for General Willard G. Wyman,
Commander-in-Chief of CONARC. As a result, CONARC ordered
rifles to test. Stoner and Sierra Bullet's Frank Snow began work on
the .222 Remington cartridge. Using a ballistic calculator, they
determined that a 55-grain bullet would have to be fired at
3,300 ft/s (1,006 m/s) to achieve the 500-yard performance
necessary.[5] Service rifle cartridge cases: (left to
right) 7.62×54mmR, 7.62×51mm
Robert Hutton (technical editor of Guns & Ammo magazine) NATO, 7.62×39mm, 5.56×45mm
started development of a powder load to reach the 3,300 ft/s NATO, 5.45×39mm
(1,006 m/s) goal. He used DuPont IMR4198, IMR3031, and an
Olin powder to work up loads. Testing was done with a
Remington 722 rifle with a 22-inch Apex barrel. During a public demonstration, the round successfully
penetrated the U.S. steel helmet as required. But testing showed chamber pressures to be excessively
high.[5][11]

Stoner contacted both Winchester and Remington about increasing the case capacity. Remington created a
larger cartridge called the ".222 Special", which was loaded with DuPont IMR4475 powder.[5] During
parallel testing of the T44E4 (future M14) and the AR-15 in 1958, the T44E4 experienced 16 failures per
1,000 rounds fired compared to 6.1 for the AR-15.[5]

Due to several different .222 caliber cartridges being developed for the SCHV project, the 222 Special
was renamed .223 Remington in 1959. In May of that year, a report was produced stating that five- to
seven-man squads armed with AR-15 rifles had higher hit probabilities than 11-man squads armed with
M-14 rifles. At a 4th of July picnic, Air Force General Curtis LeMay fired an AR-15 and was very
impressed with it. He ordered a number of them to replace M2 carbines that were in use by the Air Force.
By November, testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground showed that the AR-15 failure rate had declined to
2.5 failures per 1,000 rounds, resulting in the M-16 being approved for Air Force Trials.[5]

Marksmanship testing in 1961 comparing the M-16 to the M-14 indicated 43% of M-16 shooters
achieved "expert" while only 22% of M-14 shooters did. General LeMay subsequently ordered 80,000
rifles.[5]

In the spring of 1962, Remington submitted the specifications of the .223 Remington to the Sporting
Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI). In July 1962, operational testing ended with a
recommendation for adoption of the M-16 rifle chambered in .223 Remington.[5]

In September 1963, the .223 Remington cartridge was officially accepted and named "Cartridge, 5.56mm
ball, M193". The specification includes a Remington-designed bullet and the use of IMR4475 powder
which resulted in a muzzle velocity of 3,250 ft/s (991 m/s) and a chamber pressure of 52,000 psi.[5]

In 1970, NATO members signed an agreement to select a second, smaller caliber cartridge to replace the
7.62×51mm NATO cartridge.[12] Of the cartridges tendered, the .223 Remington (M193) was the basis
for a new design created by FN Herstal. The FN-created cartridge was named "5.56×45mm NATO" with
a military designation of SS109 in NATO and M855 in the U.S.[13] These new SS109 ball cartridges
required a 228 mm (1-in-9 inch) twist rate while adequately stabilizing the longer L110 tracer projectile
required an even faster, 178 mm (1-in-7 inch), twist rate.[5]

The Belgian 62 gr SS109 round was chosen for standardization as the second NATO standard rifle
cartridge which led to the October 1980 STANAG 4172. The SS109 used a 62 gr full metal jacket bullet
with a seven grain mild steel tip to move the center of gravity rearward, increasing flight stability and
thereby the chances of striking the target tip-first at longer ranges, in part to meet a requirement that the
bullet be able to penetrate through one side of a WWII U.S. M1 helmet at 500 yd (457 m) (which was
also the requirement for the 7.62×51mm NATO). An actual helmet was not used for developmental
testing, but an SAE 1010 or SAE 1020 mild steel plate, positioned to be struck at exactly 90 degrees. It
had a slightly lower muzzle velocity but better long-range performance due to higher sectional density
and a superior drag coefficient.

The .223 Remington cartridge inspired an international tendency toward relatively small-sized,
lightweight, high-velocity military service cartridges that allow a soldier to carry more ammunition for
the same weight compared to their larger and heavier predecessor cartridges, have favourable maximum
point-blank range or "battle zero" characteristics, and produce relatively low bolt thrust and free recoil
impulse, favouring lightweight arms design and automatic fire accuracy.[10][14][15]

Cartridge dimensions
The 5.56×45mm NATO has a 1.85 mL (28.5 gr H2O) cartridge case capacity.

5.56×45mm NATO maximum NATO cartridge dimensions, all sizes in

millimeters (mm)[16][17]

The rifling twist rate for this cartridge is 177.8 mm (1 in 7 in), 6 grooves right
hand twist, Ø lands = 5.56 millimetres (0.219 in), Ø grooves = 5.69
millimetres (0.224 in).[6]
5.56×45mm NATO cross
According to STANAG 4172 and the official NATO proofing guidelines the section
5.56×45mm NATO case can handle up to 420.0 MPa (60,916 psi) piezo
service pressure. In NATO regulated organizations every rifle cartridge
combination has to be proofed at 537.5 MPa (77,958 psi) to certify for service issue.[18] STANAG 4172
defines the Belgian ball cartridge SS109 as the NATO reference cartridge and adds a considerable number
of technical requirements like a minimum pressure of 88.0 MPa (12,763 psi) at the gas port 280
millimetres (11.0 in) down the 508 millimetres (20.0 in) long standard proof barrel and primer sensitivity
that are not defined by civilian C.I.P. and SAAMI ammunition rulings and recommendations.[6]

The NATO military alliance uses a NATO-specific recognized class of procedures to control the safety
and quality of firearms ammunition called NATO EPVAT testing. The civilian organisations C.I.P. and
SAAMI use less comprehensive test procedures than NATO. The NATO Manual of Proof and Inspection
AC/225 (LG/3-SG/1) D/8 stipulates each weapon and component considered vulnerable to the effects of a
rapid change in pressure, for example barrels, breech blocks and bolts, will be tested by firing one dry
round at a corrected minimum of 25% over pressure and one oiled round at a corrected minimum of 25%
over pressure. Over pressure of 25% means 25% in excess of the service pressure resulting for the
5.56×45mm NATO up to 430.0 MPa (62,366 psi) (Pmax) piezo service pressure. The service pressure is
defined as the mean pressure generated by the service cartridge at a temperature of 21 °C (70 °F). Such a
high pressure proof is conducted with both the weapon and ammunition conditioned to an ambient
temperature of 21 °C (70 °F). Each weapon will be individually tested, from an ammunition lot that
produces a minimum corrected mean chamber pressure. The corrected proof pressure requirement
(service pressure (Pmax) + 25%) for the 5.56×45mm NATO like the STANAG 4172 is 537.3 MPa
(77,929 psi) (PE) piezo pressure. This pressure has to be recorded in a NATO-design EPVAT barrel with
Kistler 6215 transducer,[19][20] HPI GP6 Transducer[21] or by equipment to C.I.P. requirements.[18]

The US SAAMI lists maximum average pressure (MAP) for the .223 Remington cartridge as 55,000 psi
(379.2 MPa) piezo pressure with deviation of up to 58,000 psi (399.9 MPa).[22]

Rifle barrel configurations

When 5.56×45mm NATO was adopted as standard in 1980, NATO chose a 178 mm (1:7) rifling twist rate
for the 5.56×45mm NATO chambering to adequately stabilize the relatively long NATO L110/M856
5.56×45mm NATO tracer projectile.[5][23][24] The US at that time converted all rifles in inventory by
replacing the barrels and all new US military rifles since have been manufactured with this ratio.[25]

In the US builders of AR type rifles can specify barrels with either .223 Remington, .223 Wylde, 223
Noveske, or 5.56×45mm NATO chambers in lengths from pistol (7.5") to long rifle (24"). These barrels
are also available with rifling ranging from 356 mm (1-in-14") to 178 mm (1-in-7"). US makers are
moving toward 5.56×45mm NATO and 178 mm (1-in-7"), which will ensure the least liability.[25] Those
chambered for .223 Remington may not have a fast enough rifling to stabilize the longer 5.56×45mm
NATO bullets which range up to 77 gr. Some hunting loads of .223 Remington go to 90 grains.[25][26]

Performance
The 5.56×45mm NATO SS109/M855 cartridge (NATO: SS109; U.S.: M855) with standard 62 gr. lead
core bullets with steel penetrator will penetrate about 38 to 51 cm (15 to 20 in) into soft tissue in ideal
circumstances. As with all spitzer shaped projectiles, it is prone to yaw in soft tissue. However, at impact
velocities above roughly 762 m/s (2,500 ft/s), it may yaw and then
fragment at the cannelure (the crimping groove around the
cylinder of the bullet).[27] These fragments can disperse through
flesh and bone, inflicting additional internal injuries.[28]

Fragmentation, if and when it occurs, imparts much greater

damage to human tissue than bullet dimensions and velocities
would suggest. This fragmentation effect is highly dependent on
velocity, and therefore barrel length: short-barreled carbines
generate less muzzle velocity and therefore lose wounding
5.56mm NATO shown alongside
effectiveness at much shorter ranges than longer-barreled rifles.[29]
other cartridges and a United States
$1 bill
Proponents of the hydrostatic shock theory contend that the
shockwave from a high-velocity bullet results in wounding effects
beyond the tissue directly crushed and torn by the bullet and
fragments.[30][31][32] However, others argue that tissue damage
from hydrostatic shock is a myth. Critics argue that sonic pressure
waves do not cause tissue disruption and that temporary cavity
formation is the actual cause of tissue disruption mistakenly
attributed to sonic pressure waves.[33]

SS109/M855 NATO ball can penetrate up to 3 mm (0.12 in) of

steel at 600 meters.[34] According to Nammo, a Finnish-
5.56×45mm NATO cartridges in a
Norwegian ammunition producer, the 5.56×45mm NATO M995 STANAG magazine
armour piercing cartridge can penetrate up to 12 mm (0.47 in) of
RHA steel at 100 meters.[35]

The US Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory measured a ballistic coefficient (G7 BC) of 0.151 and form
factor (G7 i) of 1.172 for the SS109/M855 ball projectile.[36]

The Swedish military has measured the bullet velocities of SS109/M855 military cartridges at 4 m
(13.1 ft) from the muzzle fired from differing barrel lengths.

Barrel length SS109/M855 V4 bullet velocity V4 velocity loss

210 mm (8.3 in) 723 m/s (2,372 ft/s) 41 m/s (135 ft/s)
240 mm (9.4 in) 764 m/s (2,507 ft/s) 32 m/s (105 ft/s)

270 mm (10.6 in) 796 m/s (2,612 ft/s) 29 m/s (95 ft/s)

300 mm (11.8 in) 825 m/s (2,707 ft/s) 18 m/s (59 ft/s)
330 mm (13.0 in) 843 m/s (2,766 ft/s) 23 m/s (75 ft/s)

360 mm (14.2 in) 866 m/s (2,841 ft/s) 12 m/s (39 ft/s)

390 mm (15.4 in) 878 m/s (2,881 ft/s) 14 m/s (46 ft/s)
420 mm (16.5 in) 892 m/s (2,927 ft/s) 14 m/s (46 ft/s)

450 mm (17.7 in) 906 m/s (2,972 ft/s) 9 m/s (30 ft/s)

480 mm (18.9 in) 915 m/s (3,002 ft/s) 7 m/s (23 ft/s)
508 mm (20.0 in) 922 m/s (3,025 ft/s) -
Criticism
There has been much debate of the allegedly poor performance of the bullet on target in regard to
stopping power, lethality, and range. Some of this criticism has been used to advocate an intermediate-
sized cartridge between the 5.56 and 7.62 NATO sizes[37] while criticisms of poor barrier penetration and
accuracy have been used to support the M855A1 EPR round.[4] Arguably, the criticisms about range,
accuracy, and lethality are related to the change in barrel length and twist between the M16 and M4. The
earlier 5.56 rounds (the original M193) were optimized for a 20-inch (51 cm) barrel with a 1:12 twist. In
1980 STANAG 4172 defined the 5.56×45mm NATO chambering and its accompanying 1:7 twist
rifling.[38] The shorter 14.5-inch (37 cm) barrel of the M4 carbine (with a STANAG 4172 conform 1:7
twist and M855/SS109 5.56 rounds^) generates significantly lower muzzle velocity, reducing the
likelihood that the bullet will upset (yaw, fragment, or expand) in the target and resulting in less
significant wounds.

Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance
deficiencies with 5.56x45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been
manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite their being hit multiple times
by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the
enemy soldier without yawing or fragmenting. This failure to yaw and fragment can be caused
by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short barrel weapons or when the range
increases. It can also occur when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or
the chest of a thin, malnourished individual, as the bullet may exit the body before it has a
chance to yaw and fragment. In addition, bullets of the SS109/M855 type are manufactured by
many countries in numerous production plants. Although all SS109/M855 types must be 62 gr.
FMJ bullets constructed with a steel penetrator in the nose, the composition, thickness, and
relative weights of the jackets, penetrators, and cores are quite variable, as are the types and
position of the cannelures. Because of the significant differences in construction between
bullets within the SS109/M855 category, terminal performance is quite variable—with
differences noted in yaw, fragmentation, and penetration depths.[39]

If 5.56 mm bullets fail to upset (yaw, fragment, or deform) within tissue, the results are less
significant wounds that may not cause adequate blood loss or damage to immediately stop the
target's attack or advances. This is true for some 5.56×45mm FMJ bullets at extended ranges.
As expected, with decreased wounding effects, rapid incapacitation is unlikely: enemy soldiers
may continue to pose a threat to friendly forces and violent suspects can remain a danger to law
enforcement personnel and the public. Two other yaw issues: Angle-of-Attack (AOA)
variations between different projectiles, even within the same lot of ammo, as well as Fleet Yaw
variations between different rifles, were elucidated in 2006 by the Joint Service Wound Ballistic
Integrated Product Team (JSWB-IPT), which included experts from the military law
enforcement user community, trauma surgeons, aero ballisticians, weapon and munitions
engineers, and other scientific specialists. These yaw issues were most noticeable at close
ranges and were more prevalent with certain calibers and bullet styles—the most susceptible
being 5.56×45mm NATO FMJ ammunition like SS109/M855 and M193.

— Martin Fackler[40]
The 5.56×45mm NATO standard SS109/M855
Wound profiles in ballistic gelatin
cartridge was designed for maximum performance Note: images are not to same scale
when fired from a 508 mm (20.0 in) long barrel, as
was the original 5.56 mm M193 cartridge.
Experiments with longer length barrels up to 610 mm
(24.0 in) resulted in no improvement or a decrease in
muzzle velocities for the SS109/M855 cartridge.
Shorter barrels produce a greater flash and noise
signature, and the addition of a suppressor to a short
barreled AR family rifle can make it unreliable, as
the reduced time for the propellant to burn in the
barrel and higher muzzle pressure levels at the M16 M193 5.56×45mm
suppressor entrance can cause faster cycling and
feeding issues. Unless the gas port can be regulated
or adjusted for higher pressures, suppressors for short
barreled 5.56×45mm NATO firearms must be larger
and heavier than models for standard length rifles to
function reliably. SS109/M855 cartridges fired from
barrels under about 254 mm (10.0 in) in length do not
have enough muzzle velocity energy to cause
extreme damage that occurs only at terminal
velocities of over 750 m/s (2,500 ft/s) on impact,
M16A2 SS109/M855 5.56×45mm NATO
reducing the wounding capacity.[41][42]

Compared to larger calibers, proponents of the

5.56×45mm NATO round contend that animal studies of the wounding effects of the 5.56×45mm NATO
round versus the 7.62×39mm have found that the 5.56×45mm NATO round is more damaging, due to the
post-impact behavior of the 5.56 mm projectile resulting in greater cavitation of soft tissues.[43] The US
Army contended in 2003 that the lack of close range lethality of the 5.56×45mm NATO was more a
matter of perception than fact. With controlled pairs and good shot placement to the head and chest, the
target was usually defeated without issue. The majority of failures were the result of hitting the target in
non-vital areas such as extremities. However, a minority of failures occurred in spite of multiple hits to
the chest.[44]

Some have contended that shot placement is the most important parameter in determining the lethality of
a bullet. Difficulty with the 5.56×45mm NATO at long ranges has been attributed to training;[45] Swedish
ISAF units relied on .50 BMG heavy machine guns for long-range shooting due to resilience to factors
such as range and wind drift. Underperformance is thus attributed to errors in range and wind estimation,
target lead, firing position, and stress under fire, factors that can be resolved through training.[46][45]

Improvements
Advances have been made in 5.56 mm ammunition. The U.S. military had adopted for limited issue a 77-
grain (5.0 g) "Match" bullet, type classified as the Mk 262. The heavy, lightly constructed bullet
fragments more violently at short range and also has a longer fragmentation range.[47] Originally
designed for use in the Mk 12 SPR, the ammunition has found favor with special forces[48] units who
were seeking a more effective cartridge to fire from their M4A1 carbines. Commercially available
loadings using these heavier (and longer) bullets can be prohibitively expensive and cost much more than
military surplus ammunition. Additionally, these heavy-for-caliber loadings sacrifice some penetrative
ability compared to the M855 round (which has a steel penetrator tip). Performance of 5.56×45mm
military ammunition can generally be categorized as almost entirely dependent upon velocity in order to
wound effectively. Heavy OTM bullets enhance soft tissue wounding ability at the expense of hard-
target/barrier penetration.

U.S. Special Forces had sought to create a round that had increased power out of carbine M4 barrels and
compact SCAR-L barrels, while increasing hard target performance. Developmental efforts led to the
creation of the Mk318. The bullet uses an open-tip design to inflict damage on soft tissue, and has a brass
rear to penetrate hard targets. The tip and lead core fragments consistently even when using short barrels,
while the rear moves through once the front impacts.[49] It has more consistent performance because it is
not yaw-dependent like the M855; the nose fragments upon impact and solid rear penetrator continues to
move relatively straight. This makes the Mk318 effective against personnel with or without body armor.
The round also increases accuracy, from 3–5 minute of angle (MOA) with the M855 from an M4A1
barrel to 1.71 MOA at 300 yards and 1.67 MOA at 600 yards from a 14 in (360 mm) SCAR-L barrel.[50]

For general issue, the U.S. Army adopted the M855A1 round in 2010 to replace the M855. The primary
reason was pressure to use non-lead bullets. The lead slug is replaced by a copper alloy slug in a reverse-
drawn jacket, with a hardened steel penetrator extending beyond the jacket, reducing lead contamination
to the environment. The M855A1 offers several improvements other than being lead-free. It is slightly
more accurate, has better consistency of effect in regards to wounding ability, and has an increased
penetrating capability. The 62 grain (4.0 g) projectile can better penetrate steel, brick, concrete, and
masonry walls, as well as body armor and sheet metal. It penetrates 3⁄8 in (9.5 mm) of mild steel at 350
meters, which the M855 can only do at 160 meters. The propellant burns faster, which decreases the
muzzle flash and gives a higher muzzle velocity, an important feature when fired from a short barreled
M4 carbine. Though the M855A1 is more expensive to produce, its performance is considered to
compensate. One possible danger is that it generates much greater pressure in the chamber when fired,
decreasing service life of parts and increasing the risk of catastrophic failure of the weapon (though this
has yet to occur).[51][52]

The U.S. Marines adopted the Mk318 in early 2010 due to delays with the M855A1. This was a
temporary measure until the M855A1 was available for them, which occurred in mid-2010 when the
Army began to receive the rounds. Both the Mk318 and M855A1 weigh the same and have similar
performance, and both have better performance than the M855 against all targets. SOCOM spent less
money developing the Mk318 and it is marginally better than the M855A1 in some situations, but costs
more per round. The Army spent more developing the M855A1 which performs as well or nearly as well
as the Mk318, but is cheaper per round and has the advantage of being lead-free. While SOCOM
constantly looks for better equipment, the Army and Marines have far more troops to supply and buy
more ammunition than SOCOM.[53]

Alternatives
If the 5.56 mm bullet is moving too slowly to reliably yaw, expand, or fragment on impact, the wound
size and potential to incapacitate a person is greatly reduced. There have been numerous attempts to
create an intermediate cartridge that addresses the complaints of 5.56 NATO's lack of stopping power
along with lack of controllability seen in rifles firing 7.62 NATO in full auto. Some alternative cartridges
like the 300 AAC Blackout (7.62×35mm) focus on penetration and stopping power at short ranges by
sacrificing long-distance performance. These calibers are designed to be interoperable with the 5.56 by
maintaining similar dimensions, which allows them to be used in a 5.56-chambered rifle with a simple
barrel change.

By late 2004, the 6.8mm Remington SPC (6.8×43mm) was in limited use with U.S. Special Operators.
[54]However, it was not adopted for widespread use due to resistance from officials on changing

calibers.[54] In 2007, both the U.S. SOCOM and the U.S. Marine Corps decided not to field weapons
chambered in 6.8×43mm due to logistical and cost issues.[55]

In April 2022, the U.S. Army selected a new rifle and light machine gun as part of the Next Generation
Squad Weapon Program. They will replace 5.56 mm weapons, being chambered in 6.8×51mm Fury that
has greater accuracy and range while being more lethal than 5.56×45mm NATO and 7.62×51mm NATO
against emerging threats.[56]

5.56mm NATO versus .223 Remington

The exterior dimensions of the 5.56mm NATO and .223 Remington cartridges are identical.[13][57] While
the cartridges are identical other than powder load, the chamber leade, i.e. the area where the rifling
begins, is cut to a sharper angle on some .223 commercial chambers. Because of this, a cartridge loaded
to generate 5.56mm pressures in a 5.56mm chamber may develop pressures that exceed SAAMI limits
when fired from a short-leade .223 Remington chamber. As the chambers differ, the head space gauges
used for the two chamberings differ.[58]

Brass case
The dimensional specifications of 5.56 NATO and .223 commercial brass cases are identical. The cases
tend to have similar case capacity when measured, with variations chiefly due to brand, not 5.56 vs .223
designation. The result of this is that there is no such thing as "5.56 brass" or ".223 brass", the differences
in the cartridges lie in pressure ratings and in chamber leade length, not in the shape or thickness of the
brass.[59][60]

In July 2012, the US Army made a request for vendors to supply alternative cartridge cases to reduce the
weight of an M855A1 5.56 mm round by at least 10 percent, as well as for the 7.62 NATO and .50 BMG
rounds. The cartridge cases must maintain all performance requirements when fully assembled, be able to
be used by the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, must be manufactured in quantities totaling
approximately 45 million per year. Polymer-cased ammunition is expected as a likely lightweight case
technology.[61] A hybrid polymer/metal version of a conventional cartridge case would be thicker than
regular cases and reduce the amount of space for the propellant,[62] although certain polymers could be
thermodynamically more efficient and not lose energy to the case or chamber when fired.[63]

Pressure
C.I.P. defines the maximum service and proof test pressures of the .223 Remington cartridge equal to the
5.56mm NATO, at 430 MPa (62,366 psi). This differs from the SAAMI maximum pressure specification
for .223 Remington of 380 MPa (55,114 psi), due to CIP test protocols measuring pressure using a drilled
case, rather than an intact case with a conformal piston, along with other differences.[64] NATO uses
NATO EPVAT pressure test protocols for their small arms ammunition specifications.[20][65] Differences
in testing methodology have led to widespread confusion, however when measured with identical
measuring equipment using identical methodologies, .223 Remington yields peak average pressures about
5,000 psi lower than 5.56 NATO.[13]

Chamber
The 5.56mm NATO chamber, known as a NATO or mil-spec chamber, has a longer leade, which is the
distance between the mouth of the cartridge and the point at which the rifling engages the bullet. The .223
Remington chamber, known as SAAMI chamber, is allowed to have a shorter leade, and is only required
to be proof tested to the lower SAAMI chamber pressure. To address these issues, various proprietary
chambers exist, such as the Wylde chamber (Rock River Arms)[66] or the ArmaLite chamber, which are
designed to handle both 5.56×45mm NATO and .223 Remington equally well. The leade of the .223
Remington minimum C.I.P. chamber also differs from the 5.56mm NATO chamber specification. The
casings and chambers .223 Remington and 5.56×45mm NATO are virtually the same dimensions, but due
to the fact that .223 Remington is designed to handle much lower pressures than the 5.56×45mm NATO
the rounds are not completely interchangeable. Firing a 5.56×45mm NATO round out of a rifle
chambered in .223 Remington could be injurious or fatal to the user as well as the gun, however .223
Remington ammunition can be fired safely from almost any rifle chambered in 5.56×45mm NATO as the
NATO specified rifles can handle much higher chamber pressures than the .223 Remington is capable of
producing.

Using commercial .223 Remington cartridges in a 5.56mm NATO chambered rifle should work reliably,
but until recently, it was believed this was less accurate than when fired from a .223 Remington
chambered gun due to the longer leade.[67] Although that may have been true in the early 1960s when the
two rounds were developed, recent testing has shown that rifles chambered in 5.56×45mm NATO can
also fire .223 ammunition every bit as accurately as rifles chambered in .223 Remington, and the
5.56×45mm NATO chamber has the additional advantage of being able to safely fire both calibers.[68]
Using 5.56×45mm NATO mil-spec cartridges (such as the M855) in a .223 Remington chambered rifle
can lead to excessive wear and stress on the rifle and even be unsafe, and SAAMI recommends against
the practice.[69][70] Some commercial rifles marked as ".223 Remington" are in fact suited for
5.56×45mm NATO, such as many commercial AR-15 variants and the Ruger Mini-14 (marked ".223 cal",
except the Mini-14 "Target" model, which only fires .223), but the manufacturer should always be
consulted to verify that this is acceptable before attempting it, and signs of excessive pressure (such as
flattening or gas staining of the primers) should be looked for in the initial testing with 5.56×45mm
NATO ammunition.[71]

The upper receiver (to which the barrel with its chamber are attached) and the lower receiver are entirely
separate parts in AR-15 style rifles. If the lower receiver has either .223 or 5.56 stamped on it, it does not
guarantee the upper assembly is rated for the same caliber, because the upper and the lower receiver in
the same rifle can, and frequently do, come from different manufacturers – particularly with rifles sold to
civilians or second-hand rifles that have been repaired with spare parts. Since all parts are
interchangeable, a shooter must take great caution to check for markings of 5.56×45mm on the barrel
before attempting to fire 5.56×45mm NATO ammunition out of it.
In more practical terms, as of 2010 most AR-15 parts suppliers engineer their complete upper assemblies
(not to be confused with stripped uppers where the barrel is not included) to support both calibers in order
to satisfy market demand and prevent any potential problems. Some manufacturers have begun offering a
hybrid .223 Wylde chamber designed to optimally support both cartridges.

Ammunition capacity for weight comparison

The first confrontations between the AK-47 and the M14 rifle came in the early part of the Vietnam War.
Battlefield reports indicated that the M14 was uncontrollable in full-auto and that soldiers could not carry
enough ammo to maintain fire superiority over the AK-47.[72] A replacement was needed, as a result, the
Army was forced to reconsider a 1957 request by General Willard G. Wyman, commander of the U.S.
Continental Army Command (CONARC) to develop a .223 caliber (5.56 mm) select-fire rifle weighing
6 lbs (2.7 kg) when loaded with a 20-round magazine.

This request ultimately resulted in the development of a scaled-

down version of the Armalite AR-10, called ArmaLite AR-15
rifle.[73][74][75] During testing it was found that a 5- to 7-man team
armed with the ArmaLite AR-15s had the same firepower as 11-
man team armed with M14s.[76] Also, soldiers armed with
ArmaLite AR-15s could carry nearly three times more ammunition Colt ArmaLite AR-15 Model 01 with
as those armed with M14s (649 rounds vs 220 rounds).[76] The 20-round magazine
ArmaLite AR-15, officially designated Rifle, caliber 5.56 mm,
M16, was later adopted by U.S. infantry forces as the standard-
issue rifle.[5][10]

Here is a table comparing rifles based on a maximum ammunition

load in box magazines of 10 kg (22 lb). An M16A1 with 30-round magazine
 Cartridge Weight of loaded Max. 10 kilogram ammo
Rifle Cartridge
weight magazine load

AK-47 30 rd mag at 819 g 12 mags at 9.83 kg (21.7 lb)

7.62×39mm 252 gr (16.3 g)
(1949) (1.806 lb)[77][78] for 360 rds[79]

7.62×51mm 13 mags at 9.75 kg (21.5 lb)

M14 (1959) 393 gr (25.5 g) 20 rd mag at 750 g (1.65 lb)
NATO for 280 rds[79]
31 mags at 9.92 kg (21.9 lb)
M16 (1962) .223 Remington 183 gr (11.9 g) 20 rd mag at 320 g (0.71 lb)
for 620 rds[79]

AK-74 30 rd mag at 545 g 18 mags at 9.81 kg (21.6 lb)

5.45×39mm 162 gr (10.5 g)
(1974) (1.202 lb)[78][80] for 540 rds[79]

M16A2 5.56×45mm 20 mags at 9.80 kg (21.6 lb)

190 gr (12.3 g) 30 rd mag at 490 g (1.08 lb)
(1982) NATO for 600 rds[79]

5.56mm NATO versus 7.62mm NATO

Comparison of 7.62mm NATO,

5.56mm NATO and 9mm
Parabellum

Cartridge Cartridge Bullet

Cartridge Model Velocity Energy
size weight weight

5.56mm M855 5.56mm (5.56 × 12.31 g 4.02 g 922 m/s

NATO 45 mm) Ammunition
5.56×45mm
(190 gr) (62 gr) (3,025 ft/s) 1,709 J[81]

M80 7.62mm
7.62mm 25.40 g 9.33 g 838 m/s
(7.62×51mm) 7.62×51mm 3,275 J
NATO (392 gr) (144 gr) (2,749 ft/s)
Ammunition

Hit probability refers to the ability of a soldier to concentrate on firing in spite of their weapon's recoil
and noise, which is noticeably different between the two cartridges. The 7.62 NATO has twice the impact
energy of the 5.56 NATO, preferable if a target is protected by higher level armor, especially at "medium"
range. If not, both rounds normally penetrate satisfactorily through enemies up to 600 meters,
approximately. A 5.56 NATO round fired from a 20 in (510 mm) barrel has a flatter trajectory than a 7.62
NATO round fired from a barrel of equal length, while the 5.56 NATO fired from a 14.5 in (370 mm)
barrel has the same trajectory as the 7.62 NATO from a 20 in barrel, as well as the same time of flight. A
7.62 NATO round reaches 50 percent of its velocity within 80 mm (3.1 in) of the barrel when fired, so
decreasing the barrel length for close quarters combat results in increased muzzle pressure and greater
noise and muzzle flash.[45][46]

Military cartridges

Australia
Packaging configurations for M2A1-type ammunition boxes
include 1,080 loose rounds, 900 rounds divided across eighteen
plastic film packs containing fifty rounds each, 600 rounds in
bandoliers containing 15-round charger clips, and 800 linked
rounds divided across four 200-round belts each which can
contain either a single ammunition nature or a mix of ammunition
natures (e.g. four ball rounds followed by one tracer
round).[82][83][84]
Images of U.S. 5.56×45mm NATO
Unless stated otherwise, all ammunition listed below is produced
ammunition
by Thales Australia. Since 2012, Thales Australia's ammunition
production has been conducted via its Australian Munitions
subsidiary.[85]

Cartridge, Ball, F1 (1985–present):[84] FN SS109 equivalent produced by Australian

Defence Industries (ADI) and then by Thales Australia.
Cartridge, Ball, F1A1 [Green tip] (2010–present):[84] FN SS109 equivalent with optimized
projectile having a modified boat tail length and meplat diameter, redesigned case
thickness, new primer cup design, and AR2210V01 propellant. The cartridge offers
improved interoperability in foreign weapons (e.g. the AR-15 family) compared to the original
F1 whilst retaining performance in the F88 rifle.[86][87] Unlike the F1 cartridge, the F1A1
headstamp has a dimple at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock. This is a hallmark of the automated
SCAMP loading machinery used to make the new cartridges.
Cartridge, Ball, F193:[84] M193 equivalent.
Close Target Round:[84] Modified F1 ammunition allowing for indoor training to be
conducted with unmodified weaponry and for outdoor CQB training to be conducted with
reduced safety templates and more realistic stand-off ranges to targets up to 100m. The
ammunition is trajectory-matched to standard 5.56mm ball and uses a lead-free copper-
polymer frangible projectile.
Reduced Range Training Ammunition:[84] Similar to the Close Target Round but
trajectory-matching to standard 5.56mm ball extends to 300 metres.
Cartridge, Tracer, M856:[82][84] FN L110/US M856 equivalent.
Cartridge, Blank, F3 [Crimped tip] (1985-1994; 1998–Present):[84] Blank cartridge
produced by ADI and then by Thales Australia. Due to low demand, lots are only made
every three years. The cartridge uses a single base propellant consisting of nitrocellulose
with added stabiliser and ballistic moderants.
Cartridge, Blank, F3A1:[84] A version of the F3 cartridge with chemically blackened brass to
aid in distinguishing the cartridge from live rounds.
Austria
Round, 5.56mm Ball, M193: M193 equivalent produced by Hirtenberger Patronen[88]

Belgium
Cartridge, Ball, SS109: 5.56×45mm 61-grain [3.95 g][89] Semi-Armor-Piercing cartridge w/.
steel penetrator produced by Fabrique Nationale. Adopted in 1979 as the NATO
standard.[12]

Canada
Cartridge, Ball, C77: 5.56×45mm FN SS109 equivalent used in the C7, C8 and C9 type
weapons. Made by General Dynamics Canada.[90]
Cartridge, Tracer, C78: 5.56×45mm FN SS110 equivalent used in the C7, C8 and C9 type
weapons. Made by General Dynamics Canada.
Cartridge, Blank, C79 [Crimped tip]: 5.56×45mm blank cartridge used in the C7, C8 and
C9 type weapons. Also made by General Dynamics Canada.

France
Ammunition made by GIAT.

Type O (Ordinaire, "Standard" or "Ball"): A Full-Metal-Jacketed lead-core bullet similar to

the US M193. It was used with the FAMAS.
Type T (Traçant, "Tracer"): A tracer bullet similar to the US M196.

Germany
Patrone AA59, 5.56×45mm, DM11, Weichkern ("Soft-core", or Ball) [Green tip]:
5.56×45mm 4.1 g dual core ball cartridge w/steel core, similar to M855/SS109, produced by
RUAG Ammotec.[91]
Patrone, 5.56×45mm, DM11 A1, Weichkern [Green tip]: 5.56×45mm 4.0 g (62gr) dual
core ball cartridge w/steel core, similar to M855/SS109, designed for and used by the
German Bundeswehr with NATO approval (AC/225-125A), produced by Metallwerk
Elisenhütte GmbH.[92]
Patrone, 5.56×45mm, DM18, Manöver ("Maneuver"): Blanks with brass base, produced
by Metallwerk Elisenhütte GmbH.[92]
Patrone AA63, 5.56×45mm, DM21, Leuchtspur (Tracer) [Orange tip]: 5.56×45mm tracer
complement to DM11, also produced by RUAG Ammotec.
Patrone, 5.56×45mm, DM31, Hartkern ("Hard-core", or Armor Piercing): 5.56×45mm 4.0
g (62gr) armor piercing cartridge w/tungsten carbide core, produced by Metallwerk
Elisenhütte GmbH.[92]
Patrone, 5.56×45mm, DM38, Übung ("Practice"): 5.56×45mm 0.5 g (7.70gr) plastic
training cartridge, plastic case cartridge colored light blue with a light 7.7-grain plastic bullet
designed for short ranges with a dangerous space under 400-metre, produced by
Metallwerk Elisenhütte GmbH.[92]
 Patrone, 5.56×45mm, DM41 A1, Weichkern: 5.56×45mm 4.0 g (62gr) FMJ cartridge,
similar to M855/SS109 but without the steel penetrator tip, produced by Metallwerk
Elisenhütte GmbH.[92]
Patrone, 5.56×45mm, DM51: 5.56×45mm 3.6 g (55gr) deformation pure copper cartridge
designed for high energy transfer to soft targets, produced by Metallwerk Elisenhütte
GmbH.[92]

Japan
Cartridge, Ball, Type 89[93][94]
Cartridge, Ball, Type 89(C)[95]
Cartridge, Ball, Type 89(C), Linked[96]
J3 : 5.56×45mm bullet weights 12 grams, made from steel and red brass, and uses a
double-base powder, specifically made for Japan’s new Type 20 rifle, which will replace the
Type 89 rifle in Japan Ground Self Defence Force service. [97][98]

South Africa
Packaging configurations for all ammunition natures c. 2010 consisted of a plastic 8217 box containing
2,700 rounds divided across nine PVC bags of ten thirty-round cartons each and a conventional M2A1
box containing 800 rounds divided across forty twenty-round cartons each. For linked ammunition,
configurations consisted of a plastic 7716 box containing 2,000 linked rounds divided across five plastic
7815 cases of two 200-round belts each and a conventional M2A1 box containing 800 linked rounds
divided across four 200-round belts each.[99] Unless stated otherwise, all ammunition listed is or was
produced by Pretoria Metal Pressings which is a division of Denel.

Round, 5.56×45mm, Ball, R1M1/M2: M193 equivalent with Boxer (R1M1) or Berdan
(R1M2) primers produced from 1977 to 1983.[100]
Round, 5.56×45mm, Tracer, R1M1/M2: M196 equivalent produced from 1979 to 1983.[100]
Round, 5.56×45mm, Drill, R1M1/M2: Drill round produced from 1978 to 1983.[100]
Cartridge, 5.56×45mm, Blank, R1M1/M2: M200 equivalent produced from 1978 to
1983.[100]
Cartridge, 5.56×45mm, Rifle Grenade Launching, R1M1: Grenade-launching cartridge
produced from 1979 to 1983.[100]
Round, 5.56×45mm, Proof, R1M1/M2: Proof round produced from 1979 to 1983,
identifiable by honey colouring on the tip and base until 1982 when this was switched to
yellow. A warmer round variation exists which is identifiable by purple colouring on the tip,
base, or both.[100]
Round, 5.56×45mm, Ball, M1A2/A3/A4: M193 equivalent with Berdan primers from 1983
onwards.[100][99][101]
Round, 5.56×45mm, Tracer, M2A2/A3/A4: M196 equivalent produced from 1983
onwards.[100]
Cartridge, 5.56×45mm, Blank, M4A2-A7: M200 equivalent produced from 1983
onwards.[100][99]
Cartridge, 5.56×45mm, Rifle Grenade Launching, M5A1/A2/A3: Grenade-launching
cartridge produced from 1983 onwards.[100]
 Round, 5.56×45mm, High Pressure Proof, M13A2/A3/A4: Proof round produced from
1983 onwards, identifiable by yellow colouring on the tip, base, or both. A warmer round
variation exists with purple colouring.[100]
Round, 5.56×45mm, Drill, M14A2/A3/A4: Drill round produced from 1983 onwards.[100]
Round, 5.56×45mm, Ball, Manna: M1-type round with thin-walled jacket produced from
1986 onwards.[100]
Round, 5.56×45mm, Ball, M193: M193 equivalent produced for export sales.[99]
Round, 5.56×45mm, Ball, SS109/M855: FN SS109 equivalent produced for export
sales.[99]
Round, 5.56×45mm, Tracer, M196: M196 equivalent produced for export sales.[99]
Cartridge, 5.56×45mm, Blank, M200: M200 equivalent produced for export sales.[99]

Switzerland
5,6mm Gw Pat 90: The 63-grain 5.56×45mm Gewehrpatrone 90 / 5,6mm Gw Pat 90 ("5.6-
mm Rifle Cartridge 90") is the Swiss Army's standard 5.56mm Ball round. It is optimized for
use with the Sturmgewehr 90 service rifle, both which were adopted in 1987. The
Sturmgewehr 90 rifled barrel has 6 right-hand grooves and a Swiss Army specification
254 mm (1:10 in) rifling twist rate. The original cupronickel-plated steel-jacketed bullet and
Berdan primer was replaced by a tombac-jacketed bullet and lead-free Boxer primer. Since
1997 most components of the round are made in Switzerland.

United Kingdom
Military ammunition is generally provided in H83 ammunition boxes containing 800[102][103] or 900
rounds, with these containing either cardboard cartons of twenty rounds each, cardboard cartons of thirty
rounds each (900-round H83s only), or nylon bandoliers with five pockets containing three ten-round
charger clips each for a total of 150 rounds per bandolier (900-round H83s only). In addition to these H83
configurations, blank rounds can come in wire-bound wooden boxes containing 1,000 rounds in twenty-
round cartons.[104] Linked ammunition is supplied in H83 boxes that contain belts of the desired quantity
and link configuration (e.g. a 800-round box consisting of belts arranged in a sequence of four ball rounds
followed by one tracer round).[105]

Round, 5.56mm Ball, M193: M193 equivalent produced by Radway Green (though some
quantities of Hirtenberger Patronen-produced rounds were imported)[88][106][107]
Round, 5.56mm Ball, L2A1/A2: FN SS109 equivalent produced by Radway
Green.[106][108][109][102][110][111]
Round, 5.56mm Ball, L3A1: M193 equivalent produced by Hirtenberger Patronen for use in
AR-15 weapons and the HK 53 (L101A1/A2) rifle.[112]
Round, 5.56mm Ball, L7A1: Produced by Hirtenberger Patronen[111]
Round, 5.56mm Ball, L15A1/A2: FN SS109 equivalent produced by Radway Green,
optimised for use in AR-15 weapons such as the L119A1/A2 rifle.[108][113][114][115][116][111]
Round, 5.56mm Ball, L17A1/A2: FN SS109 equivalent produced by Radway Green,
optimised for use with SA80 weapons.[113][114][117][104][111]
Round, 5.56mm Ball, L21A1: FN SS109 equivalent produced by RUAG.[111]
Round, 5.56mm Ball, L31A1: New "Enhanced Performance" design produced by Radway
Green since 2016, based on the FN SS109 round but featuring an all-steel bullet for
 improved penetration and giving similar performance in both AR-15 and SA80
weapons.[114][118]
Round, 5.56mm Tracer, L1A1/A2 [Red tip]: Tracer round complement to L2A1/A2,
produced by Radway Green.[106][108][110][111]
Round, 5.56mm Tracer, L16A1 [Red tip]: Tracer round complement to L15A1/A2 and
L17A1/A2, produced by Radway Green.[115][111]
Round, 5.56mm Tracer, L22A1 [Red tip]: Tracer round complement to L21A1, produced
by RUAG.
Round, 5.56mm IR Tracer, L26A1 [Red tip]: Infrared Tracer round only visible through
night vision devices. [111]
Round, 5.56mm Armour Piercing, L23A1[111]
Round, 5.56mm Reduced Range Low Penetration, L24A1[111]
Round, 5.56mm Close Quarter Training, L25A1[111]
Round, 5.56mm Marker Blue, L28A1[111]
Round, 5.56mm Marker Red, L29A1[111]
Cartridge, 5.56mm Blank, L1A1/A2/A3 [crimped tip]: Blank training round complement to
L2A1/A2, produced by Radway Green.[106][108][111]
Cartridge, 5.56mm Blank, L8A1 [crimped tip]: Blank training round produced by DAG.[111]
Cartridge, 5.56mm Blank, L18A1 [crimped tip]: Blank training round complement to
L17A1/A2, produced by Radway Green.[104][111]
Cartridge, 5.56mm Blank, L27A1 [crimped tip]: Blank training round optimised for feeding
in the L119A1/A2 rifle.[111]
Round, Drill, L1A1 [chromed body]: 5.56×45mm inert training round, produced by
Radway Green.

United States
Military ammunition was packed exclusively in 20-round cartons
from 1963 to 1966. In late 1966, the 10-round stripper clip and
magazine-charging adapter were introduced and ammunition
began being packed in clips in bandoleers. Typical packaging
configurations for M2A1-type ammunition boxes include 840
rounds of ball ammunition in ten-round stripper clips,[119] 1,140
rounds of blank ammunition in cartons,[120] and 800 linked rounds
irrespective of ammunition natures.[121] Typical wire-bound M855 and M856 cartridges in an
wooden box capacities include 1,680 rounds[122][123] and 1,600 ammunition belt using M27
rounds.[124] disintegrating links

US Army
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Ball, M193: 5.56×45mm 55-grain [3.56 g] ball cartridge. This
was type-standardized and designated by the US Army in September, 1963.
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Grenade, M195 [Crimped tip with Red lacquer seal]:
5.56×45mm high-pressure grenade-launching blank.
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Tracer, M196 [Red or Orange tip]: 5.56×45mm 54-grain
[3.43 g] tracer cartridge.
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, High Pressure Test (HPT), M197 [stannic-stained or nickel-
plated case]: High-pressure Testing cartridge used when proofing weapons during
manufacture, test, or repair.
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Dummy, M199 [No primer, Fluted case]: 5.56×45mm inert
cartridge with fluted indentations in the case. Used for loading and unloading drills during
basic training.
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Blank, M200 [Crimped tip with Violet lacquer seal]:
5.56×45mm training blank cartridge.
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Ball, M202: 5.56×45mm 58-grain FN SSX822 cartridge.
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Dummy, M232 [No primer, Black-anodized case and
bullet]: 5.56×45mm inert cartridge. Used for testing rifle mechanisms.
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Ball, XM287: 5.56×45mm 68-grain ball cartridge produced by
Industries Valcartier, Inc. An Improved version was also produced designated XM779.
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Tracer, XM288: 5.56×45mm 68-grain tracer cartridge
produced by Industries Valcartier, Inc. An Improved version was also produced designated
XM780.
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Grenade, M755 [Crimped tip with Yellow lacquer seal]:
5.56×45mm grenade launching blank specifically for the 64mm M234 launcher. The original
white lacquer seal was discontinued due to excessive bore fouling. Its design is otherwise
an exact duplicate of the M195 Grenade cartridge.
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Ball, XM777: 5.56×45mm ball cartridge. An attempt to create
a 55-grain SS109-style Semi-Armor-Piercing round that weighed the same as the M193 and
could use the same US-standard 1-in-12-inch rifling. It replaced the 6×45mm SAW round as
the baseline cartridge for the Squad Automatic Weapon trials in the late 1970s and early
1980s.
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Tracer, XM778: 5.56×45mm tracer cartridge mated with the
XM777 Semi-Armor-Piercing cartridge.
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Ball, M855 [Green tip]: 5.56×45mm 62-grain FN SS109-
equivalent ball cartridge with a steel penetrator tip over a lead core in a full copper jacket. It
is designed to penetrate lightly armored targets, such as body armor or light vehicles, and
has a steel core that provides increased penetration.
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Ball, M855LF Lead Free [Green tip]: 62-grain bullet with a
steel penetrator tip over a tungsten-composite core in a full copper jacket. Primarily used
during training in countries with strict lead disposal laws.
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Ball, M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round [unpainted
steel penetrator tip] (2010–Present): 62-grain bullet w/ a 19-grain steel penetrator tip over
a copper alloy core in a partial copper jacket.[125]
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Tracer, M856 [Orange tip]: 5.56×45mm 63.7-grain FN L110
tracer cartridge. Provides red visible light and lacks a steel penetrator.
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Tracer, M856A1 [Red tip]: 5.56×45mm 56-grain Lead Free
slug (LF) Tracer with similar ballistic performance to the M855A1 and improved 70 to 900 m
(77 to 984 yd) visible trace to range consistency.[126][127]
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Plastic, Practice, M862 [Brass primer, Aluminum case and
Blue plastic projectile]: Short Range Training Ammo (SRTA) uses a light plastic bullet with
a maximum range of just 250 meters. Because the M862 has less energy, the M2 training
bolt must be used in the M16 Rifle / M4 Carbine for the weapon to cycle properly. The M2
training bolt and M862 cartridge case use a smaller-than-standard head diameter as a
safety feature: this prevents standard ammunition from being able to be chambered or fired.
The M862 SRTA is typically used for training on shooting ranges that are limited in size,
such as near built-up or populated areas.
 Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Armor Piercing, M995 [Black tip]: 5.56×45mm 52-grain AP
cartridge with a tungsten core.
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Tracer, XM996 [Crimson tip]: So-called "Dim Tracer" with
reduced effect primarily for use with night vision devices.

US Air Force
Cartridge, Caliber 5.64 mm, Ball, MLU-26/P (Munition, Live, Unit #26 / Personnel
use)[128] (Federal Stock Number (FSN): 1305-968-5892, DOD Identification Code (DODIC):
A066; assigned 1 January 1962): Early USAF designation for a 55-grain 5.56×45mm FMJ
Boat-Tailed ball cartridge produced by Remington-Union Metallic Cartridge Company. It was
their designation for the commercial 55-grain .223 Remington M.C. ("Metallic-Cased", or Full
Metal Jacketed) cartridge, which the Air Force initially designated "5.64 mm" (.222 caliber)
rather than 5.56 mm (.218 caliber). The first order in 1963 (headstamped RA 63 or REM-
UMC 63) consisted of 8.5 million rounds and was procured for testing, training and
unconventional warfare use with the XM16 rifle. The cartridges came packed unclipped in
white 20-round commercial ammunition cartons, packed 36 cartons (720 rounds) per M2A1
ammo can, and shipped two M2A1 cans (1440 rounds in total) per wire-bound plywood
crate. Until the Army's adoption of the M193 Ball round, this was the only type of military
5.56mm ammunition available in the South-East Asia theater.

US Navy & US Marine Corps

Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Frangible, MK 255 MOD 0 [White Tip]: 5.56×45mm 62-grain
Reduced Ricochet Limited Penetration (RRLP) round with copper/polymer composite core
for training and operational use.[129]
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Special Ball, Long Range, Mk 262 MOD 0/1: 5.56×45mm
77-grain Open-Tipped Match/Hollow-Point Boat-Tail cartridge. MOD 0 features Sierra
Matchking bullet, while MOD 1 features either Nosler or Sierra bullet.
Cartridge, 5.56×45mm, semi-jacketed Frangible, MK 311 MOD 0 : Reduced Ricochet
Limited Penetration (R2LP) round, 50-grain frangible bullet intended for training. Produced
by Western Cartridge Company (headstamp: WCC).
Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm Ball, Enhanced 5.56 mm Carbine, MK318 MOD 0:
5.56×45mm 62-grain Open-Tipped Match Boat-Tail cartridge. Optimized for use with 14-inch
barreled weapons like the M4A1 Carbine and MK16 SCAR and designed to penetrate light
barriers like windshields or car doors with no loss of accuracy or damage.[130][131] Since
designated as Caliber 5.56 mm Ball, Carbine, Barrier.

SS109/M855
In 1970, NATO decided to standardize a second rifle caliber. Tests were conducted from 1977 to 1980
using U.S. XM777 5.56 mm, Belgian SS109 5.56 mm, British 4.85×49mm, and German 4.7×33mm
caseless. No weapon could be agreed upon, as many were prototypes, but the SS109 was found to be the
best round and standardized on 28 October 1980. The SS109 was developed in the 1970s for the FN FNC
rifle and the FN Minimi machine gun. To increase the range of the Minimi, the round was created to
penetrate 3.5 mm of steel at 600 meters. The SS109 had a steel tip and lead rear and was not required to
penetrate body armor. Barrels required at least a 1:9 in rifle twist, but needed a 1:7 in rifle twist to fire
tracer ammunition.[45][46][50] The U.S. designated the SS109 cartridge the M855 and first used it in the
M16A2 rifle. The 62-grain round was heavier than the previous 55-grain M193. While the M855 had
better armor penetrating ability, it is less likely to fragment after hitting a soft target. This lessens kinetic
energy transfer to the target and reduces wounding capability.[132] The M855 is yaw dependent, meaning
it depends on the angle upon which it hits the target. If at a good angle, the round turns as it enters soft
tissue, breaking apart and transferring its energy to what it hits. If impacting at a bad angle, it could pass
through and fail to transfer its full energy.[52] The SS109 was made to pierce steel helmets at long range
from the Minimi, not improve terminal performance on soft tissue from rifles or carbines.[40] In Iraq,
troops that engaged insurgents at less than 150 yards found that M855 rounds did not provide enough
stopping power. In addition to not causing lethal effects with two or more rounds, they did not effectively
penetrate vehicle windshields, even with many rounds fired at extremely close range.[133] In Afghanistan,
troops found that M855 rounds also suffered at long ranges. Although 5.56 mm rifles have an effective
range of 450–600 meters, the M855 bullet's performance falls off sharply beyond 300 meters. The ranges
are even shorter for short-barreled carbines. Half of small-arms attacks were launched from 300 to 900
meter ranges.[134] An M855 fired from an M4 Carbine has severely degraded performance beyond 150
meters.[40]

The maximum effective point target range of an M4 carbine with M855 rounds is 500 m (547 yd), with a
maximum effective area target range of 600 m (656 yd). These mark the greatest distances the rounds can
be expected to accurately hit the target, not the ranges that they have terminal effectiveness against them.
Because the M855 is yaw dependent it requires instability in flight to deform upon hitting the target. It is
the most stable in flight between 150–350 m (164–383 yd), potentially lessening its effectiveness if it
strikes an enemy between those distances. In addition to this, tests have shown that 5.56 mm bullets
fragment most reliably when traveling faster than 2,500 ft/s (760 m/s). From full-length 20 in (508 mm)
rifle and machine gun barrels, rounds exhibit velocities above 2,500 ft/s (760 m/s) out to 200 m (219 yd).
An M855 fired from a shorter barreled M4 carbine exhibits a bullet velocity of 2,522 ft/s (769 m/s) at
150 m (164 yd) range. Even if it impacts at optimum speeds, 70 percent of 5.56 mm bullets will not begin
to yaw until 4.7 in (120 mm) of tissue penetration. 15 percent more begin to yaw after that distance, so up
to 85 percent of rounds that hit do not start to fragment until nearly 5 in of penetration. Against small
statured or thin combatants, the M855 has little chance of yawing before passing through cleanly and
leaving a wound cavity no bigger than the bullet itself. The factors of impact angle and velocity,
instability distance, and penetration before yaw reduce the round's predictable effectiveness considerably
in combat situations.[135]

M855A1
The M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round (EPR) was
introduced in June 2010. It features a lead-free 62 grain (4.0 g)
projectile with a solid copper core, and is tailored for use in rifles
with shorter barrels such as the M4 carbine. It provides more
consistent performance compared to the M855.[126]

Deployment
M855A1 Enhanced Performance
On 24 June 2010, the United States Army announced it began
Round and its environmentally
shipping its new 5.56 mm cartridge, the M855A1 Enhanced friendly (lead-free) projectile
Performance Round (EPR), to active combat zones. During
testing, the M855A1 performed better than M80 7.62×51mm
NATO ball ammunition against certain types of targets (particularly hardened steel). However, this was
due to the addition of the steel penetrator to the M855A1 projectile compared to the standard lead-alloy
core of the M80 projectile and is not an accurate comparison between the two cartridges. The US Army
Picatinny Arsenal stated that the new M855A1 offers improved hard target capability, more consistent
performance at all distances, enhanced dependability, improved accuracy, reduced muzzle flash, and
higher velocity compared to the SS109/M855 round. Further, the Army stated the new M855A1
ammunition is tailored for use in M4 carbines, but should also give enhanced performance in M16 rifles
and M249 light machine guns. The new 62-grain (4 g) projectile used in the M855A1 round has a copper
core with a 19-grain (1.2 g) steel "stacked-cone" penetrating tip. The M855A1 cartridge is sometimes
referred to as "green ammo" because it fires a lead free projectile.[125][126][136][137][138][139] It is not
necessarily more lethal than the SS109/M855, but performs more consistently every time it hits a soft
target and retains its performance at longer distances. The EPR can penetrate a 3⁄8 in (9.5 mm) thick mild
steel barrier from an M4 at 350 m (380 yd) and from an M16 at 400 m (440 yd). Compared to the
SS109/M855 the M855A1 muzzle velocities are somewhat increased to 3,150 ft/s (960 m/s) (+37 ft/s
(11 m/s)) for the M16 and 2,970 ft/s (910 m/s) (+54 ft/s (16 m/s)) for the M4 carbine.[3] Ballistics for
both rounds are similar and do not require weapons to be re-zeroed, but if they are the EPR can be
slightly more accurate. The steel-tip penetrator of the M855A1 is noticeably separated from the jacket of
the bullet and can spin, but this is part of the design and does not affect performance. The M855A1 costs
only 5 cents more per round than the M855.[140] The M855A1 bullet has a 1⁄8 in (3.2 mm) greater length
than the SS109/M855.[141] Because steel and copper are less dense than lead, the bullet is lengthened
inside the case to achieve the same weight as its predecessor.[10] The longer bullet and reverse-drawn
jacket make it more stable and accurate in-flight. Its steel tip is exposed from the jacket and bronzed for
corrosion resistance. The tip is serrated and larger than the M855's steel tip. The M855A1's bullet
composition, better aerodynamics, and higher proof pressures give it an extended effective range for
penetration and terminal performance.[142] While effectiveness at different ranges is increased, the
M855A1 does not increase the effective ranges at which weapons are expected to hit their targets. The
Enhanced Performance Round was made to nearly match the trajectory of the M855 to aid in training
consistency—the SS109/M855 ballistic coefficient (G7 BC) of 0.151 was improved to 0.152 for the
M855A1[143]—but the ranges to get desired effects are greatly extended.[144]

The United States Marine Corps purchased 1.8 million rounds in 2010, with plans to adopt the round to
replace the interim MK318 SOST rounds used in Afghanistan when the M855A1 project was
delayed.[145] The Marine Corps plans to adopt the M855A1 round in 2018; although testing revealed it
caused "some durability issues" with the Marines' M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, the weapon is still
"operationally suitable" when firing the round.[146]

On a media day at Aberdeen Proving Ground on 4 May 2011, reports were given about the M855A1's
performance in the field since it was issued 11 months earlier. One primary advantage given by the round
is its consistent performance against soft targets. While the older SS109/M855 was yaw-dependent,
which means its effectiveness depends on its yaw angle when it hits a target, the M855A1 delivers the
same effectiveness in a soft target no matter its yaw angle. The new SMP-842 propellant in the round
burns quicker in the shorter M4 carbine barrel, ensuring less muzzle flash and greater muzzle velocity.
The M855A1 was able to penetrate 3⁄8 inch (9.5 mm) of mild steel plate at 300 m (330 yd). The round
even penetrated concrete masonry units, similar to cinder blocks, at 75 m (82 yd) from an M16 and at
50 m (55 yd) from an M4, which the M855 could not do at those ranges. Its accuracy is maintained and
sometimes increased, as it was able to shoot a group 2 inches better at 600 m (660 yd). February 2011
was the first time the M855A1 was used more than the M855, and approximately 30 million M855A1
rounds have been fielded from June 2010 to May 2011.[147]
The M855A1 was put to the test at the 2012 National Rifle Association's National High-Power Rifle
Championship at Camp Perry, Ohio in August 2012. The shooter for the Army was Rob Harbison, a
contractor supporting small caliber ammunition capability development at Fort Benning Georgia. This
was a special event for the Project Manager for Maneuver Ammunition Systems and the Army's
Maneuver Center of Excellence as it was an opportunity to showcase the capabilities of the Enhanced
Performance Round. With an M16 loaded with M855A1 ammo, Harbison fired a perfect 200 points in the
Coast Guard Trophy Match, which is 20 shots fired from the sitting position at 200 yards, finishing 17th
out of 365 competitors. He also scored a perfect 100 on the final string of ten shots during the Air Force
Cup Trophy Match, fired at 600 yards from the prone position, which is 10 shots in a row within the 12-
inch, 10-point ring at 600 yards with combat ammunition. Harbison was happy with the performance of
the EPR, with his scores showing that the Army's newest general purpose round is accurate enough to go
toe-to-toe in the competition with the best ammo that can be bought or hand-loaded. Harbison even said,
"I don't think I could have scored any higher if I was using match-grade competition ammunition."[148]
The M855A1 was not fired from 1:7 rifled barrels used in standard Army rifles, but special Army
Marksmanship Unit (AMU) match-grade 1:8 rifled barrels, which produce more accurate results when
firing 62-grain rounds.[141]

From fielding in June 2010 to September 2012, Alliant Techsystems delivered over 350 million M855A1
Enhanced Performance Rounds.[149]

Since its introduction, the M855A1 has been criticized for its St. Mark's SMP842 (former WC842) ball
propellant causing increased fouling of the gun barrel. Post-combat surveys have reported no issues with
the EPR in combat. A series of tests found no significant difference in fouling between the old M855 and
the M855A1. However, manufacturers have reported "severe degradation" to barrels of their rifles using
the M855A1 in tests.[150] The Army attributes pressure and wear issues with the M855A1 to problems
with the primer, which they claim to have addressed with a newly designed primer.[151] It uses a modified
four-pronged primer anvil for more reliable powder ignition,[142] with a stab crimp rather than a
circumferential crimp to better withstand the new load's higher chamber pressure,[141] increased from
55,000 psi (379.2 MPa) to 62,000 psi (427.5 MPa).[62][152] During Army carbine testing, the round
caused "accelerated bolt wear" from higher chamber pressure and increased bore temperatures. Special
Operator testing saw cracks appear on locking lugs and bolts at cam pin holes on average at 6,000 rounds,
but sometimes as few as 3,000 rounds during intense automatic firing. Firing several thousand rounds
with such high chamber pressures can lead to degraded accuracy over time as parts wear out; these effects
can be mitigated through a round counter to keep track of part service life. Weapons with barrel lengths
shorter than the M4 firing the M855A1 also experience 50 percent higher pressures than a full-length
M16 rifle barrel, which can cause port erosion that can boost the automatic fire rate, increasing the
likelihood of jams.[141]

From June 2010 to June 2013, issuing of the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round removed 1,994
metric tons of lead from the waste stream. 2.1 grams (32 gr) of lead are eliminated from each M855A1
projectile.[153]

Mk 262
The Mk 262 is a match-quality round manufactured by Black Hills Ammunition made originally for the
Special Purpose Rifle (SPR). It uses a 77-grain (5.0 g) Sierra MatchKing bullet that is more effective at
longer ranges than the standard issue M855 round.
In 1999, SOCOM requested Black Hills Ammunition to develop ammunition for the Mk 12 SPR that
SOCOM was designing. For the rifle to be accurate out to 700 yards, Black Hills "militarized" a cartridge
that used the Sierra 77 grain OTM (Open Tip Match) projectile; it switched from a .223 Remington to
5.56 mm case, increased pressure loading, crimped and sealed the primer, and added a flash retardant to
the powder. The Mk 262 MOD 0 was adopted in 2002. Issues came up in development including
reliability problems in different temperatures and when the weapon got dirty, and cycling issues in cold
weather due to the slightly shorter barrel of the SPR compared to the full-length M16A2 barrel. The
problems were addressed with a slower burning powder with a different pressure for use in the barrel,
creating the Mk 262 MOD 1 in 2003. During the product improvement stage, the new propellant was
found to be more sensitive to heat in weapon chambers during rapid firings, resulting in increased
pressures and failure to extract. This was addressed with another powder blend with higher heat tolerance
and improved brass. Also during the stage, Black Hills wanted the bullet to be given a cannelure, which
had been previously rejected for fear it would affect accuracy. It was eventually added for effective
crimping to ensure that the projectile would not move back into the case and cause a malfunction during
auto-load feeding. Although the temperature sensitive powder and new bullet changed specifications, the
designation remained as the MOD 1.[154]

According to US DoD sources, the Mk 262 round is capable of making kills at 700 meters. Ballistics tests
found that the round caused "consistent initial yaw in soft tissue" between 3 and 4 in at ranges from 15
feet to 300 meters. Apparently it is superior to the standard M855 round when fired from an M4 or M16
rifle, increasing accuracy from 3–5 minutes of angle to 2 minute of angle. It possesses superior stopping
power, and can allow for engagements to be extended to up to 700 meters when fired from an 18-inch
barrel. It appears that this round can drastically improve the performance of any AR-15 weapon
chambered to .223/5.56 mm. Superior accuracy, wounding capacity, stopping power and range have made
this the preferred round of many special forces operators, and highly desirable as a replacement for the
older, Belgian-designed 5.56×45mm SS109/M855 NATO round. In one engagement, a two-man special
forces team reported 75 kills with 77 rounds.[155] The Mk 262 has a higher ballistic coefficient than the
M855 of (G1)0.362 / (G7)0.181, meaning it loses less velocity at long-range.[143]

Black Hills also produces the MK262 Mod-1C for sale in the US civilian market under Product Code
D556N9.[156]

Mk318
Following early engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. Special Operations Forces reported that
M855 ammunition used in M4A1 rifles was ineffective. In 2005, the Pentagon issued a formal request to
the ammunition industry for "enhanced" ammunition. The only business that responded was the Federal
Cartridge Company, owned by Alliant Techsystems. Working with the Naval Surface Warfare Center
Crane Division, the team created performance objectives for the new ammo: increased consistency from
shot to shot regardless of temperature changes, accuracy out of an M4A1 better than 2 minute of angle (2
inches at 100 yards, 6.3 inches at 300 yards), increased stopping power after passing through
"intermediate barriers" like walls and car windshields, increased performance and decreased muzzle flash
out of shorter barrel FN SCAR rifles, and costs close to the M855. The first prototypes were delivered to
the government in August 2007. Increased velocity and decreased muzzle flash were accomplished by the
type of powder used. The design of the bullet was called the Open Tip Match Rear Penetrator (OTMRP).
The front of it is an open tip backed up by a lead core, while the rear half is solid brass. When the bullet
hits a hard barrier, the front half of the bullet crushes against the barrier, breaking it so the penetrating
half of the bullet can go through and hit the target. With the lead section penetrating the target and the
brass section following, it was referred to as a "barrier blind" bullet.[49][157]

Officially designated the Mk318 MOD 0 "Cartridge, Caliber 5.56mm Ball, Carbine, Barrier", and
called SOST (Special Operations Science and Technology) ammunition, the 62-grain bullet fragments
consistently, even out of a 10.5 in barrel. The lead portion fragments in the first few inches of soft tissue,
then the solid copper rear penetrates 18 in of tissue (shown though ballistic gelatin) while tumbling. Out
of a 14" in barrel, the Mk318 has a muzzle velocity of 2,925 ft/s (892 m/s).[49][157]

In February 2010, the U.S. Marine Corps adopted the Mk318 for use by infantry. To be fielded by an
entire branch of the military, the round is classified as having an "open-tip" bullet, similar to the M118LR
7.62 NATO round. The SOST bullet uses a "reverse drawn" forming process. The base of the bullet is
made first, the lead core is placed on top of it, and then the jacketing is pulled up around the lead core
from bottom to tip. Conventional, and cheaper, bullets are made with the method of the jacket drawn
from the nose to an exposed lead base. The reverse drawn technique leaves an open tip as a byproduct of
the manufacturing process, and is not specifically designed for expansion or to affect terminal ballistics.
The Pentagon legally cleared the rounds for Marine use in late January. The Marines fielded the Mk318
gradually and in small numbers. Initial studies showed that insurgents hit by it suffered larger exit
wounds, although information was limited. SOST rounds were used alongside M855 rounds in situations
where the SOST would be more effective.[49][157][158] In July 2010, the Marines purchased 1.8 million
M855A1 Enhanced Performance Rounds, in addition to millions of Mk318 rounds in service, as part of
its effort to replace its M855 ammo.[159] As of May 2015, Marine combat units still deployed with a
mixture of both SOST and M855 rounds.[160]

As the issue of environmentally friendly ammo grew, the Marines looked to see if the Mk318's lead could
be replaced while still meeting specifications. They found that by replacing the lead with copper and
slightly stretching the jacket around to crimp the nose even more, the bullet's ballistic coefficient
increased. To avoid visual confusion with the Mk 262 round, the bullet was entirely nickel-plated for a
silver color; the enhanced silver-colored copper jacketed, open tip match, 62-grain projectile was named
the Mk318 MOD 1.[161]

5.6mm Gewehr Patrone 90

The 5.6mm Gewehr Patrone 90 or 5,6mm Gw Pat 90 (5.6 mm Rifle Cartridge 90), is the standard round
used by the Swiss military in its rifle, the SIG SG 550. The cartridge is also known as the Cart 5,6mm 90
F (French: Cartouche pour Fusil / Italian: Cartuccia per Fucile) to the French- and Italian-speaking
Swiss militiamen. The Swiss refer to the round as the 5.6 mm Gw Pat 90, although it is interchangeable
with the 5.56×45mm NATO and .223 Remington round. The Gw Pat 90 round firing a 4.1 g (63 gr) FMJ
bullet is optimized for use in 5.56 mm (.223 in) caliber barrels with a 254 mm (1:10 in) twist rate.

The Gw Pat 90 was designed for the SIG SG 550 when it came into production in 1987, replacing the
SIG SG 510. Previous experience of a change in standard rifle had proved that changing the distance of
fire for the training ranges was more expensive than the design of a new ammunition; this prompted the
design of a cartridge nominally capable at 300 meters. The cartridge was also designed to reduce
pollution by controlling lead emissions.[163] The bullet was originally clad with a nickel alloy jacket,
however, this was found to cause excessive barrel wear, so in 1998
the nickel jackets were replaced with tombac jackets. In addition,
in 1999 a copper plug was added to the base of the bullet to
address environmental concerns.[163]

As of 2009 the ammunition was produced by RUAG Ammotec, a

subsidiary of the RUAG group.[164] It is manufactured in three
variations: the standard FMJ round, the tracer round, and a blank
round. Ready ammunition of the Swiss
Army. Soldiers equipped with the
The FMJ cartridge has a Copper-Zinc alloy case and uses a double SIG 550 assault rifle used to be
base propellant. The bullet is a 4.1 g (63 gr) tombac jacketed FMJ issued 50 rounds of ammunition in a
projectile with a G1 ballistic coefficient of 0.331 (ICAO) / 0.337 sealed can, to be opened only upon
(Army Metro). The projectile contains approximately 95% Pb, 2% alert and for use while en route to
Sb, 3% Cu, and was designed for terminal ballistic instability. The join their unit. This practice was
required accuracy for Gw Pat 90 ammunition out of factory test stopped in 2007.[162]
barrels is 63 mm (0.72 MOA) for 10 rounds (100% radius
measurement method) out to 300 m. The Gw Pat 90 cartridge
dimensions are in accordance with the civilian C.I.P. standards for
the .223 Remington C.I.P. chambering.[165]

The Gw Pat 90 is used both in the Swiss military and in sport

shooting. The very high level of individual training in the Swiss
militia (every single soldier bearing a weapon has to shoot in order
to maintain his ability once a year; see Gun laws in Switzerland)
and the overall use of the Gw Pat 90 by the many Swiss citizens
Swiss Army Gw Lsp Pat 90 tracer
who shoot in competitions and for amusement has resulted in rounds
significant input on its usage. Over 1 billion cartridges had been
produced as of 2005.

See also
6mm ARC
5 mm caliber
Express (weaponry)
List of 5.56×45mm NATO firearms
List of rifle cartridges
Table of handgun and rifle cartridges

References
1. "Téléchargement" ([Link]
[Link]?id=tdcc-telechargement) [Downloads]. C.I.P. (in French). Archived from the original (h
ttp://[Link]/[Link]?id=tdcc-telechargement) on 12 March 2008. Retrieved
17 October 2008.
 2. "MIL-C-9963F, Military Specification: Cartridge, 5.56mm, Ball, M193" ([Link]
ails/mil-c-9963-f). 1999.
3. Clark, Philip (April 2012). "M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round (EPR)" ([Link]
[Link]/web/20170125120308/[Link]
ease%20EPR%[Link]) (PDF). Maneuver Ammunition Systems. Archived from the
original ([Link]
[Link]) (PDF) on 25 January 2017.
4. Woods, Jeffrey K. (4 May 2011). "M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round (EPR) Media
Day" ([Link] (PDF). Defense Technical
Information Center. Archived ([Link]
mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/[Link]) (PDF) from the original on 25 February 2017. Retrieved
29 December 2017.
5. Watters, Daniel. "A 5.56 x 45mm "Timeline" " ([Link]
[Link] The Gun Zone. Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]/[Link]) on 9 February 2004. Retrieved 6 March 2017.
6. "STANAG 4172 5.56 mm Ammunition (Linked or Otherwise)" ([Link]
0201112201249/[Link]
[Link]) (PDF). NATO Military Agency for Standardization. May 1993. Archived from
the original ([Link]
[Link]) (PDF) on 12 November 2020. Retrieved 12 November 2020.
7. Arvidsson, Per G. (2008). "NATO Infantry Weapons Standardization" ([Link]
g/web/20121201183951/[Link] (PDF). NATO Army
Armaments Group. Archived from the original ([Link]
f) (PDF) on 1 December 2012.
8. Barnes, Frank C. (1972). Cartridges of the World. Northfield, IL: DBI Books. p. 37.
ISBN 978-0-695-80326-1.
9. Tong, David (2006). "U.S. Rifle, cal. 7.62mm, M14" ([Link]
[Link]. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/[Link]) from the original on 25 February 2017. Retrieved 6 March 2017.
10. "Assault Rifles and Their Ammunition: History and Prospects" ([Link]
0140602021550/[Link] Anthony G. Williams. April
2014. Archived from the original ([Link] on 2 June
2014.
11. Barnes, Frank C. (2016). Cartridges of the World. Iola, WI: Krause Publishing. p. 88.
ISBN 978-1-4402-4265-6.
12. Hogg, Ian V. Jane's Infantry Weapons 1986-87. p. 362.
13. Towsley, Bryce (4 March 2013). ".223 Remington Vs. 5.56: What's in a Name?" ([Link]
[Link]/web/20170202065139/[Link]
emington-vs-556-whats-in-a-name/). American Rifleman. Archived from the original (https://
[Link]/articles/2013/3/4/223-remington-vs-556-whats-in-a-name/) on 2
February 2017. Retrieved 6 March 2017.
14. "An Improved Battlesight Zero for the M4 Carbine and M16A2 Rifle" ([Link]
ontent/[Link]?id=599). [Link]. 1999. Archived ([Link]
5051753/[Link] from the original on 25 October
2011. Retrieved 11 September 2007.
15. "TM 9-1005-319-10 (2010) - Operator's Manual for Rifle, 5.56 MM, M16A2/M16A3/M4
(Battlesight Zero pages 48-55)" ([Link]
df) (PDF). [Link]. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/content/webPDF/[Link]) (PDF) from the original on 8 February
2014. Retrieved 3 June 2014.
16. NATO EPVAT testing
17. QuickLOAD
18. "Proof of Ordnance, Munitions, Armour and Explosives, Ministry of Defence Defence
Standard 05-101 Part 1" ([Link]
[Link]/standards/defstans/05/101/[Link]) (PDF). UK Ministry of Defence. 20 May
2005. Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]) (PDF) on 16 July 2011.
19. "Defining Parameters for Ballistic High Pressure Sensors" ([Link]
0223224949/[Link] (PDF). Kistler Group.
Archived from the original ([Link] (PDF) on
23 February 2012. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
20. "Type 6215 Quartz High-Pressure Sensor for Ballistic Pressure Measurement to 6,000 bar"
([Link]
Kistler_39706.pdf) (PDF). Kistler Group. Archived from the original ([Link]
s/tx_etim/Page_37_Kistler_39706.pdf) (PDF) on 21 April 2023 – via Industrial Engineering
News Europe.
21. "HPI Piezoelectric High Pressure Transducers – GP Series including NATO Approval" (http
s://[Link]/components/com_jshopping/files/demo_products/HPI_GP-Series_in
cl_NATO_Approval_03-[Link]) (PDF). HPI GmbH. Archived ([Link]
rchive/20221009/[Link]
ts/HPI_GP-Series_incl_NATO_Approval_03-[Link]) (PDF) from the original on 9
October 2022.
22. "SAAMI Pressures" ([Link]
[Link]. Archived ([Link]
m/articles/saami_pressures.htm) from the original on 14 October 2007. Retrieved
29 November 2007.
23. "Armalite / Colt AR-15 / M16 M16A1 M16A2 M16A3 M16A4 assault rifle (USA)" ([Link]
[Link]/web/20170307204212/[Link]
[Link]). Modern [Link]. 27 October 2010. Archived from the original (http://
[Link]/assault/usa/[Link]) on 7 March 2017.
Retrieved 7 March 2017.
24. "Some Skinny on the NATO 5.56mm L110/M856 Tracer Round" ([Link]
b/20230417101814/[Link] [Link]. May 1998.
Archived from the original ([Link] on 17 April 2023. Retrieved
13 February 2022.
25. Wood, Keith (17 November 2016). "How to Pair Barrel Twist Rates with Bullets" ([Link]
[Link]/web/20170425224602/[Link]
es-ammo/). Guns & Ammo. Archived from the original ([Link]
o/pair-barrel-twist-rates-ammo/) on 25 April 2017. Retrieved 7 March 2017.
26. ".22 Caliber (.224) 90 GR. HPBT Match" ([Link]
s://[Link]/store/[Link]/sn/9290/224-dia-90-gr-HPBT-MatchKing).
Sierra [Link]. Archived from the original ([Link]
m/sn/9290/224-dia-90-gr-HPBT-MatchKing) on 27 April 2015. Retrieved 4 August 2017.
27. Kneubuehl, Beat P., ed. (2011). Wound Ballistics: Basics and Applications. p. 128.
28. "Reading Gunshot Patterns" ([Link]
tterns_image_5.html). National Institute of Health. 16 February 2006. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20100824053701/[Link]
s/patterns_image_5.html) from the original on 24 August 2010. Retrieved 14 October 2010.
29. Fackler, Martin L. (19 May 2015). "Patterns of Military Rifle Bullets" ([Link]
apers/misc/[Link]-ballistics.patterns_of_military_rifle_bullets.fackler.
[Link]). TTK Ciar's MBT Resources. Archived ([Link]
611/[Link]
military_rifle_bullets.[Link]) from the original on 2 December 2013. Retrieved
27 November 2013.
30. Chamberlin, F. T. (1966). "Gun Shot Wounds". In Ackley, Parker O. (ed.). Handbook for
Shooters and Reloaders, Vol. II. Salt Lake City, Utah: Plaza Publishing.
31. Sturtevant, B. (1998). "Shock Wave Effects in Biomechanics" ([Link]
0230602210514/[Link] Sādhanā. 23 (5–6): 579–596.
doi:10.1007/BF02744581 ([Link] S2CID 120104102 (htt
ps://[Link]/CorpusID:120104102). Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]/104621/) on 2 June 2023. Retrieved 15 April 2023.
32. Rose, Alexander (2009). American Rifle: A Biography. pp. 375–376.
33. Fackler, Martin (Winter 1991). "The Shockwave Myth" ([Link]
8021652/[Link] (PDF). Wound
Ballistics Review: 38. Archived from the original on 28 May 2008.
34. "Ammunition" ([Link]
[Link]). Pd Igman D.D. Konjic Bosnia & Herzegovina. Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]/[Link]) on 25 March 2008. Retrieved 8 January 2011.
35. "5.56mm (.22 Cal)" ([Link]
emplates/[Link]?id=206). Nammo AS. Archived from the original ([Link]
com/templates/[Link]?id=206) on 11 November 2007.
36. Williams, Anthony G. "The Case for a General-Purpose Rifle and Machine Gun Cartridge
(GPC)" ([Link]
(PDF). Military Guns & Ammunition. Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]) (PDF) on 6 November 2015. Retrieved 31 December 2015.
37. Avery, Joseph P. (July–August 2012). "An Army Outgunned: Physics Demands A New Basic
Combat Weapon" ([Link]
h/MilitaryReview_20120831_art004.pdf) (PDF). Military Review. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20171229233616/[Link]
es/English/MilitaryReview_20120831_art004.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 29 December
2017. Retrieved 29 December 2017.
38. "STANAG 4172" ([Link]
ag/Public%20Release%20Documents/AEP-97%20EDA%20V1%[Link]) (PDF). Archived
from the original ([Link]
7%20EDA%20V1%[Link]) (PDF) on 25 May 2023.
39. "Performance of .223 and 5.56 Ammunition" ([Link]
[Link] [Link]. Archived from the
original ([Link] on 28 May 2009.
40. Bolding, Damon (6 January 2012). "Do We Need a New Service Rifle Cartridge?" ([Link]
[Link]/web/20130921055302/[Link] Small Arms
Defense Journal. Vol. 3, no. 1. Archived from the original ([Link]
=778) on 21 September 2013.
41. Dater, Philip H. & Wong, Jason (8 February 2012). "Barrel Length Studies in 5.56mm NATO
Weapons" ([Link]
p=1093). Small Arms Defense Journal. Vol. 4, no. 1. Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]/wp/?p=1093) on 3 December 2013.
42. Dater, Philip H. & Wong, Jason M. "Effects of Barrel Length on Bore Pressure, Projectile
Velocity and Sound Measurement" ([Link]
[Link]/ndia/2010armament/[Link]) (PDF). US Defense
Technical Information Center (DTIC). Archived from the original ([Link]
0armament/[Link]) (PDF) on 4 March 2016. Retrieved
16 November 2014.
43. Liu, YQ; Wu, BJ; Xie, GP; Chen, ZC; Tang, CG; Wang, ZG (1982). "Wounding effects of two
types of bullets on soft tissue of dogs". Acta Chir. Scand. Suppl. 508: 211–221.
PMID 6952680 ([Link]
44. "Soldier Weapons Assessment Team Report 6-03" ([Link]
94113/[Link] (PDF). U.S. Army Infantry Center. Archived from the
original ([Link] (PDF) on 14 July 2011. Retrieved 5 March 2011.
45. Arvidsson, Per (6 January 2012). "Is There a Problem with the Lethality of the 5.56 NATO
Caliber?" ([Link]
=769). Small Arms Defense Journal. Archived from the original ([Link]
wp/?p=769) on 12 October 2013. "The conclusion was that shot placement is the most
important parameter, and that this is achieved through good and realistic
training...Summary...To increase small arms lethality, nations must better train their
soldiers...If nations want to engage targets at long range, then it is not about rifle caliber,
projectile or barrel length, it is all about more training..."
46. Arvidsson, Per G. "Is there a problem with the lethality of the 5.56 NATO caliber?" ([Link]
[Link]/web/20131004220435/[Link]
[Link]) (PDF). NATO Armory Armaments Group, NATO Weapons and
Sensors Working Group. Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]) (PDF) on 4 October 2013. Retrieved 31 August
2013. [Note: PowerPoint style briefing slides by Per G. Arvidsson. [Link] does not back
up the full document but only the first slide.] This is another copy. ([Link]
eb/20230417101815/[Link]
[Link])
47. The Small Arms Review vol.10, no.2 November 2006
48. Jane's International Defense Review: IDR., Volume 39, Issues 1–6. p. 86. (2006).
49. "Mk 318 Mod 0: A Better Bullet, No Matter What They Call It" ([Link]
0225038/[Link] Cheaper Than [Link]. 27 November
2011. Archived from the original ([Link] on 30 August
2013.
50. Parks, W. Hays (7 October 2013). "A Way Forward in Contemporary Understanding of the
1899 Hague Declaration on Expanding Bullets" ([Link]
11/[Link] Small Arms Defense Journal. Vol. 5,
no. 3. Archived from the original ([Link] on 14
October 2013.
51. "Weapons: The Water Is Still Safe To Drink" ([Link]
[Link]). StrategyPage. 10 August 2012. Archived ([Link]
0812010101/[Link] from the
original on 12 August 2012.
52. "Dual Path Strategy Series: Part III – Soldier Battlefield Effectiveness" ([Link]
rg/web/20140528190514/[Link] (PDF).
PEO Soldier. August 2011. Archived from the original ([Link]
oads/[Link]) (PDF) on 28 May 2014. Retrieved 26 October 2013.
53. "Weapons: PC Bullets Survive Afghanistan" ([Link]
[Link]). Strategy Page. 13 May 2011. Archived ([Link]
143813/[Link] from the original on 15
December 2013.
54. Dunnigan, James (8 January 2012). "Another 7.62mm Bullet For M-16s" ([Link]
[Link]/dls/articles/[Link]). Strategy Page.
Archived ([Link]
ticles/[Link]) from the original on 11 September
2013.
55. Lamothe, Dan. "Corps to pass on Army upgrades to M4" ([Link]
925141339/[Link]
carbine-updates-091110w/). Marine Corps Times. Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]/news/2010/09/marine-corps-passes-on-army-carbine-updates-091110w/) on
25 September 2010. Retrieved 13 September 2010.
56. "Army awards Next Generation Squad Weapon contract" ([Link]
7/army_awards_next_generation_squad_weapon_contract). U.S. Army Public Affairs. 19
April 2022.
57. ".223 Remington and 5.56x45mm NATO Chamber dimensions differences" ([Link]
[Link]/web/20140315185302/[Link]
ImageShack. Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]) on 15 March 2014.
58. "NATO Chamber Headspace Gages Available for 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO" ([Link]
[Link]/archive/20221009/[Link]
t/Forster-Products-NATO%20Chamber%20Headspace%20Gages%20Sales%20Sheet_NAT
O-001_Issue%204_July%202018_print.pdf) (PDF). Forster Products. Archived from the
original ([Link]
TO%20Chamber%20Headspace%20Gages%20Sales%20Sheet_NATO-001_Issue%204_J
uly%202018_print.pdf) (PDF) on 9 October 2022.
59. "223 Rem + 223 AI Cartridge Guide" ([Link] 6mmBR.
Archived ([Link]
ml) from the original on 26 August 2011. Retrieved 26 August 2011.
60. "5.56 vs .223 – What You Know May Be Wrong" ([Link]
23/). LuckyGunner. 22 June 2012. Archived ([Link]
[Link] from the original on 27 June 2013. Retrieved
13 June 2013.
61. Johnson, Steve (20 July 2012). "Army wants lightweight cartridge cases" ([Link]
[Link]/blog/2012/07/20/army-wants-lightweight-cartridge-cases/). The Firearm Blog.
Archived ([Link]
g/2012/07/20/army-wants-lightweight-cartridge-cases/) from the original on 21 September
2013.
62. Bolding, Damon (24 October 2013). "The Army's Individual Carbine Competition: What's
Next?" ([Link] Small Arms Defense Journal. Vol. 5,
no. 3. Archived ([Link]
wp/?p=2148) from the original on 29 October 2013.
63. Bolding, Damon (26 March 2014). "The 6.5×40 Cartridge: Longer Reach for the M4 & M16"
([Link] Small Arms Defense Journal. Vol. 6, no. 1.
Archived ([Link]
2414) from the original on 8 April 2014.
64. "Cartridge Pressure Standards" ([Link] K.W. Kleimenhagen.
Archived ([Link] from
the original on 8 August 2013. Retrieved 14 June 2013.
65. "NATO Small Arms Ammunition Interchangeability via Direct Evidence Testing" ([Link]
[Link]/web/20100215073930/[Link]
[Link]) (PDF). DTIC. 9 May 2007. Archived from the original ([Link]
007smallarms/5_9_07/Geddes_1120am.pdf) (PDF) on 15 February 2010. Retrieved
10 February 2008.
66. "What is a Wylde Chamber?" ([Link]
[Link]/images/[Link]). Rock River Arms. Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]/images/[Link]) on 17 February 2007.
67. Nowak, Paul (4 May 2001). ".223 Rem VS 5.56mm" ([Link]
215048/[Link]
Winchester Ammunition. Archived from the original ([Link]
ment/news/[Link]?storyid=11) on 5 May 2008.
68. Sweeney, Patrick (March–April 2013). "Chamber Reality Check". Peterson's Rifle Shooter.
Vol. 16, no. 2. pp. 32–36.
69. "Unsafe Arms and Ammunition Combinations" ([Link]
4/[Link] SAAMI. 1998. Archived from the original
([Link] on 5 March 2009.
70. Speir, Dean (25 August 2005). "SAAMI on 5.56 v. .223 Remington" ([Link]
web/20060613200607/[Link] The Gun Zone. Archived from
the original ([Link] on 13 June 2006. Retrieved
8 January 2011.
71. "Technical Note 45: 5.56 NATO vs SAAMI .223 Remington Chambers" ([Link]
rg/web/20070817152158/[Link] Armalite
Inc. 4 December 2002. Archived from the original ([Link]
s/[Link]) on 17 August 2007.
72. Emerson, Lee (10 October 2006). "M14 Rifle History and Development" ([Link]
[Link]/web/20171215062553/[Link]
[Link]) (PDF). [Link]. Archived from the original ([Link]
1a/M14_RHAD_Online_Edition_061010.pdf) (PDF) on 15 December 2017.
73. Kern, Danford Allan (2006). The influence of organizational culture on the acquisition of the
M16 rifle ([Link]
[Link]) (PDF) (MMAS). Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: US Army Command and General Staff
College. Archived from the original ([Link] (PDF) on 5
November 2013 – via [Link].
74. Kokalis, Peter G. "Retro AR-15" ([Link] (PDF). NoDak
Spud. Archived ([Link]
[Link]) (PDF) from the original on 29 October 2013.
75. Ezell, Edward Clinton (1983). Small Arms of the World. New York: Stackpole Books. pp. 46–
47. ISBN 978-0-88029-601-4.
76. Rifle Squad Armed with a Light Weight High Velocity Rifle (Final Report) ([Link]
[Link]/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/1959-Rifle-Squad-Armed-with-a-Light-Weight-
[Link]) (PDF) (Report). Fort Ord, California: U.S. Army Combat
Experimentation Center. 24 June 1959. Archived ([Link]
959/[Link]
[Link]) (PDF) from the original on 8 May 2018 – via
Forgotten Weapons.
77. "AK 47 Technical Description - Manual" ([Link]
ical-Description-Manual). 30 September 2010. Archived ([Link]
328103151/[Link] from
the original on 28 March 2012. Retrieved 23 August 2012 – via Scribd.
78. Dockery, Kevin (2007). Future Weapons. p. 102.
79. Dockery, Kevin (2007). Future Weapons. New York City: Berkley Publishing Group.
ISBN 978-0-425-21215-8.
80. "AKM (AK-47) Kalashnikov modernized assault rifle, caliber 7.62mm" ([Link]
g/web/20141006092719/[Link] Izhmash. 2
September 2001. Archived from the original ([Link]
on 6 October 2014. Retrieved 23 August 2012.
81. KE = 1/2mv2, where m is in kilograms and v is in metres per second.
82. "5.56 MM F1 BALL AMMUNITION (August 2012)" ([Link]
wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ARM_AM_5.[Link]) (PDF). Australian
Munitions. August 2012. Retrieved 24 July 2023.
83. "5.56 MM F1 BALL AMMUNITION (August 2019)" ([Link]
wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ARM_AM_5.56-F1-A4-2pp_web.pdf) (PDF). Australian
Munitions. August 2019. Retrieved 24 July 2023.
84. "AUSTRALIAN MUNITIONS PRODUCT RANGE AND SPECIFICS (August 2019)" ([Link]
[Link]/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Armaments-AM_Product-spec
-brocure_web.pdf) (PDF). Australian Munitions. August 2019. Retrieved 24 July 2023.
85. "Thales Australia creates munitions group" ([Link]
unitions-group/68561346927400/). United Press International. 6 September 2012. Retrieved
31 October 2018.
86. "Improving In-Service Small Arms Systems – An Australian Experience" ([Link]
org/web/20161020204550/[Link]
[Link]) (PDF). Thales Australia. 1 June 2011. Archived from the original ([Link]
mil/ndia/2011smallarms/[Link]) (PDF) on 20 October 2016.
Retrieved 13 January 2012 – via DTIC.
87. Bolding, Damon (4 March 2013). "Testing & Evaluating the EF88 Assault Rifle" ([Link]
[Link]/wp/?p=1702). Small Arms Defense Journal. Vol. 5, no. 1. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20131203001033/[Link] from the
original on 3 December 2013.
88. "Written Answers: Defence, Ammunition" ([Link]
13/debates/b4f2e4d9-fbb2-4eba-82a1-b061e08877d6/WrittenAnswers#contribution-f4f616a
1-774c-42f0-ac18-9b9a0195c9c8). Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons.
13 February 1986. col. 549.
89. Hogg, Ian V. Jane's Infantry Weapons 1986-87. p. 363.
90. "Small Caliber Ammunition" ([Link]
[Link]/product/small_caliber_ammunition/). General Dynamics Canada. Archived
from the original ([Link] on 5
June 2023.
91. Bundeswehr Ausbildungskommando. "Das Gewehr G36" ([Link]
0417101815/[Link] (PDF)
(in German). Archived from the original ([Link]
nie_GewehrG36.pdf) (PDF) on 17 April 2023 – via Instandsetzungsbataillon 141. (DM11
trajectory tables at page 92 assuming V0 = 920 m/s, V800 = 301 m/s)
92. "Product catalog of Metallwerk Elisenhütte GmbH" ([Link]
nt/uploads/2017/06/products_05-2015_WEB.pdf) (PDF). 2015. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/archive/20221009/[Link]
s_05-2015_WEB.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022.
93. "89式5.56mm小銃" ([Link]
Retrieved 27 April 2024.
94. "旭精機工業株式会社" ([Link] JUDGIT!. Retrieved
27 April 2024.
95. "89式5.56mm普通弾(C)" ([Link]
7). nSearch. Retrieved 27 April 2024.
96. "89式5.56mm普通弾(C),リンク" ([Link]
f5001). nSearch. Retrieved 27 April 2024.
97. Shinichi Kiyotani (22 March 2023). "DSEI Japan 2023: Japanese MoD Unveils New 5.56
mm High-Power Ammunition" ([Link]
panese-mod-unveils-new-5-56-mm-high-power-ammunition/). European Security &
Defence.
98. "DSEI Japan 2023: JGSDF's New Howa Type 20 Rifle on Display" ([Link]
[Link]/2023/03/24/dsei-japan-2023-jgsdfs-new-type-20-howa-rifle-on-display/). 24 March
2023.
99. Denel PMP (c. 2010). DENEL PMP Products Brochure. pp. 4–5.
100. "5.56 X 45 (.223 Remington) - RSA" ([Link]
ton-rsa). Cartridge [Link]. Retrieved 21 November 2021.
101. "SANDF replenishes ammunition" ([Link]
ishes-ammunition/). [Link]. 28 March 2011. Retrieved 20 July 2021.
102. Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom) (2013). "Chapter 29, Storage Regulations for Cadet
Units Holding SAA Only, Annex A, Identification of SAA from its Package Markings". Joint
Service Publication 482, Ministry of Defence Explosives Regulations ([Link]
[Link]/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/198313/C29_E
dt4_FINAL.pdf#page=19) (PDF) (4 ed.). p. 1. Archived ([Link]
21009/[Link]
ent_data/file/198313/C29_Edt4_FINAL.pdf#page=19) (PDF) from the original on 9 October
2022. Retrieved 26 July 2021.
103. "5.56mm Ball" ([Link]
en/product/556mm-ball). BAE Systems. 21 August 2015. Archived from the original (https://
[Link]/en/product/556mm-ball) on 9 July 2023. Retrieved 8 July 2023.
104. Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom) (2014). Army Code No. 71807-C, Cadet Training, The
L98A2 Cadet GP Rifle (5.56 mm), L86A2 Light Support Weapon and Associated Equipment.
105. Chittock, Andrew (21 January 2011). "5.56mm link 5ball 1 tracer the tracer have red tips" (ht
tps://[Link]/stock-photo-556mm-link-5ball-1-tracer-the-tracer-have-red-tips-35232
[Link]). Alamy. Retrieved 8 July 2023.
106. "Written Answers: Defence: Sennybridge Range" ([Link]
611/[Link]
l). Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons. 26 July 1993. col. 737–739.
Archived from the original ([Link]
07-26/[Link]) on 20 July 2021. Retrieved 27 July 2021.
107. "Small Arms Ammunition" ([Link]
[Link]/en/product/small-arms-ammunition). BAE Systems. Archived from the original (ht
tps://[Link]/en/product/small-arms-ammunition) on 11 December 2021.
108. "British Military Cartridges: The 5.56x45mm" ([Link]
m). Military Cartridges. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/uk/5_56x45mm.htm) from the original on 26 August 2012. Retrieved 1 May
2012.
109. Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom) (2013). "Chapter 27, Free From Explosives
Regulations". Joint Service Publication 482, Ministry of Defence Explosives Regulations (htt
ps://[Link]/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/198311/C27_Edt4_FINAL.pdf#page=9) (PDF) (4 ed.). p. 9. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/archive/20221009/[Link]
m/uploads/attachment_data/file/198311/C27_Edt4_FINAL.pdf#page=9) (PDF) from the
original on 9 October 2022. Retrieved 1 April 2021.
110. Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom) (2013). "Chapter 2, Range design criteria and
specifications". Joint Service Publication 403, Handbook of Defence Land Ranges Safety (ht
tps://[Link]/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_dat
a/file/138220/JSP403_Vol2_Chap02_DLRSC.pdf#page=3) (PDF) (3 ed.). p. 3. Archived (htt
ps://[Link]/archive/20221009/[Link]
t/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/138220/JSP403_Vol2_Chap02_DLRSC.pdf#
page=3) (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022. Retrieved 27 July 2021.
111. "The Cartridge Researcher No. 561" ([Link]
[Link]/bollettini/[Link]#page=12) (PDF). European Cartridge Research
Association. January 2012. Archived from the original ([Link]
ni/[Link]#page=12) (PDF) on 20 October 2022. Retrieved 12 April 2022.
112. "Hirtenberger 5.56mm L3A1 Ball box for UK" ([Link]
ger-5-56mm-l3a1-ball-box-for-uk/33836). General Ammunition Discussion - International
Ammunition Association Web Forum. 21 June 2019. Retrieved 11 February 2022.
113. Home Office (2017). "Body Armour Standard (2017)" ([Link]
k/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/634517/Home_Office_Body_Ar
mour_Standard.pdf#page=36) (PDF). Retrieved 27 July 2021.
114. Williams, Anthony G. (8 March 2016). "BAE Systems develops improved small-calibre
ammunition for UK military" ([Link] (PDF). Aerospace,
Defense & Security. Archived ([Link]
uk/[Link]) (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022. Retrieved 21 February
2022.
115. Conflict Armament Research (2015). "Non-state Armed Groups in the Central African
Republic - Types and sources of documented arms and ammunition" ([Link]
[Link]/car_publications/NONSTATE_ARMED_GROUPS_IN_CENTRAL_AFRICAN_REPU
[Link]#page=21) (PDF). Archived ([Link]
[Link]/car_publications/NONSTATE_ARMED_GROUPS_IN_CENTRAL_AFRIC
AN_REPUBLIC.pdf#page=21) (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022. Retrieved 27 July
2021.
116. "701577419 - Army Special Operations Brigade Rifle Procurement and Support of an
Armalite Rifle (AR) platform Alternative Individual Weapon (AIW) System" ([Link]
[Link]/web/20230417103323/[Link]
gin=SearchResults&p=1). Find a Tender. Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]/Notice/017725-2021?origin=SearchResults&p=1) on 17 April 2023.
117. Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom) (2013). "Chapter 27, Free From Explosives
Regulations". Joint Service Publication 482, Ministry of Defence Explosives Regulations (htt
ps://[Link]/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/198311/C27_Edt4_FINAL.pdf#page=12) (PDF) (4 ed.). p. 12. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/archive/20221009/[Link]
m/uploads/attachment_data/file/198311/C27_Edt4_FINAL.pdf#page=12) (PDF) from the
original on 9 October 2022. Retrieved 1 April 2021.
118. "New Ammo for British Troops: UK Develops More Effective 5.56mm and 7.62mm
Ammunition" ([Link]
m/blog/2016/08/23/new-ammo-british-troops-uk-develops-effective-5-56mm-7-62mm-ammu
nition/). The Firearm Blog. 23 August 2016. Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]/blog/2016/08/23/new-ammo-british-troops-uk-develops-effective-5-56mm-7-62m
m-ammunition/) on 8 April 2023.
119. Cpl. Aneshea S. Yee (30 January 2013). "Alpha Co. Table Two" ([Link]
b/20230708153523/[Link] DVIDS.
Archived from the original ([Link] on 8
July 2023. Retrieved 8 July 2023.
120. Staff Sgt. Joy Dulen (17 October 2012). "Best Warrior Competition 2012" ([Link]
[Link]/web/20230708153523/[Link]
on-2012). DVIDS. Archived from the original ([Link]
warrior-competition-2012) on 8 July 2023. Retrieved 8 July 2023.
121. Lance Cpl. Aaron J. Rock (27 September 2006). "060927-M-1152R-033" ([Link]
[Link]/web/20230708162037/[Link] United
States Marine Corps. Archived from the original ([Link]
9068/) on 8 July 2023. Retrieved 8 July 2023.
122. Strasser, Ben (5 December 2008). "Ammo load" ([Link]
552/[Link] Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base. Archived from the original ([Link]
653020/) on 8 July 2023. Retrieved 8 July 2023.
123. Senior Airman Shandresha Mitchell (23 April 2015). "MacDill has munitions…?" ([Link]
[Link]/web/20230708192703/[Link]
056/). MacDill Air Force Base. Archived from the original ([Link]
hotos/igphoto/2001059056/) on 8 July 2023. Retrieved 8 July 2023.
124. Senior Airman Joao Marcus Costa (1 July 2022). "35th Munitions Flight conducts
retrograde" ([Link]
s/Photos/igphoto/2003040061/). 5th Air Force. Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]/News/Photos/igphoto/2003040061/) on 8 July 2023. Retrieved 8 July 2023.
125. "M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round (EPR)" ([Link]
140/[Link]
(PDF). U.S. Army Sustainment Command. Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]/ac/aais/ioc/LCAAP/Industry_Day/[Link]) (PDF) on 22 September
2013.
126. "Small Caliber Ammunition Enhancing Capabilities" ([Link]
74327/[Link]
(PDF). DTIC. 20 May 2010. Archived from the original ([Link]
nt/[Link]) (PDF) on 30 November 2012. Retrieved
8 November 2012.
127. "Armament Systems and Ammunition" ([Link]
s://[Link]/what-we-do/land/armament-systems-and-ammunition/).
Northrop Grumman. Archived from the original ([Link]
-do/land/armament-systems-and-ammunition) on 27 March 2023.
128. USAF Technical Manual TO-11W3-5-5-1, Rifle, 5,56mm, M16. Office of the Secretary of the
Air Force. 31 August 1963.
129. "5.56MM Reduced Ricochet Limited Penetration (RRLP), MK 255 Mod 0" ([Link]
[Link]/web/20130719123401/[Link] (PDF). DTIC.
Archived from the original ([Link] (PDF) on 19 July
2013. Retrieved 6 November 2013.
130. Lamothe, Dan (16 February 2010). "Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan" (https://
[Link]/web/20100422075830/[Link]
rine_SOST_ammo_021510w/). Marine Corps Times. Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]/news/2010/02/marine_SOST_ammo_021510w/) on 22 April 2010.
131. "U.S. Navy Small Arms Ammunition Advancements" ([Link]
094032/[Link] (PDF).
DTIC. 2009. Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]) (PDF) on 11 October 2010.
132. Chivers, C.J. (2 November 2009). "How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?" ([Link]
[Link]/2009/11/02/how-reliable-is-the-m-16-rifle/). The New York Times. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20110722171947/[Link]
e-is-the-m-16-rifle/) from the original on 22 July 2011.
133. Cox, Matthew (2 April 2010). "Army won't field deadlier Corps round" ([Link]
0130905012146/[Link]
eld-deadlier-Corps-round). Army Times. Archived from the original ([Link]
m/article/20100402/NEWS/4020308/Army-won-t-field-deadlier-Corps-round) on 5
September 2013.
134. "Future Infantry Small Arms" ([Link]
[Link]/future%20small%[Link]). Anthony G. Williams. September 2012.
Archived from the original ([Link]
on 26 December 2012.
135. Ehrhart, Thomas P. (21 May 2009). Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking
Back the Infantry Half Kilometer ([Link]
[Link]/sti/pdfs/[Link]) (PDF). Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: School of Advanced
Military Studies. pp. 25–28. Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]) (PDF) on 17 May 2023.
136. "Army begins shipping improved 5.56mm cartridge" ([Link]
85932/[Link]
Picatinny Arsenal. 24 June 2010. Archived from the original ([Link]
nyPublic/highlights/archive/2010/[Link]) on 1 June 2013.
137. " 'Green Ammo' Heads to Afghanistan" ([Link]
[Link]/news/article/army-news/[Link]). Military
Daily News. 24 June 2010. Archived from the original ([Link]
rmy-news/[Link]) on 23 August 2010. Retrieved 4 July
2010.
138. "U.S. Army Issues New M855A1 Ammo to Troops in Afghanistan" ([Link]
[Link]/2010/06/u-s-army-issues-new-m855a1-ammo-to-troops-in-afghanistan/). Accurate
Shooter. 29 June 2010. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/2010/06/u-s-army-issues-new-m855a1-ammo-to-troops-in-afghanist
an/) from the original on 12 August 2011. Retrieved 4 July 2010.
139. " "Green" bullets from Picatinny Arsenal in NJ to be used in Afghanistan" ([Link]
[Link]/article/20100627/COMMUNITIES/100624079/-Green-bullets-from-Picatinny-Arsena
l-in-NJ-to-be-used-in-Afghanistan). Daily Record. 27 June 2010.
140. Bolding, Damon (9 January 2012). "Infantry Weapons Conference Report" ([Link]
[Link]/wp/?p=808). Small Arms Defense Journal. Vol. 3, no. 2. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20141108232630/[Link] from the
original on 8 November 2014.
141. Plaster, John L. (21 May 2014). "Testing The Army's M855A1 Standard Ball Cartridge" (htt
p://[Link]/articles/testing-army-m855a1-standard-ball-cartridge).
American Rifleman. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/articles/testing-army-m855a1-standard-ball-cartridge) from the original on
11 October 2014.
142. Slowik, Max (6 September 2012). "New M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round smashing
expectations" ([Link]
06/new-m855a1-epr-enhanced-performance-round-camp-perry-101-abn-video/). [Link].
Archived from the original ([Link]
formance-round-camp-perry-101-abn-video/) on 3 December 2013.
143. Bolding, Damon (26 March 2014). "The 6.5×40 Cartridge: Longer Reach for the M4 & M16"
([Link] Small Arms Defense Journal. Vol. 6, no. 1.
Archived ([Link]
p/?p=2414) from the original on 23 January 2015. Retrieved 14 January 2015.
144. Woods, Jeffrey K. (26 November 2010). "Evolution of the M855A1 Enhanced Performance
Round" ([Link] U.S. Army. Archived ([Link]
b/20140420171100/[Link] from the original on 20 April 2014.
145. Lamothe, Dan; Cox, Matthew (12 July 2010). "Corps takes a new look at green bullet" (http
s://[Link]/web/20100716220810/[Link]
marine_ammo_071110w/). Marine Corps Times. Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]/news/2010/07/marine_ammo_071110w/) on 16 July 2010. Retrieved
12 July 2010.
146. Schogol, Jeff (11 December 2017). "New in 2018: Corps adopts M855A1 round" ([Link]
[Link]/news/your-marine-corps/2017/12/11/new-in-2018-corps-adopts-m
855a1-round/). Marine Corps Times. Archived ([Link]
1/[Link]
s-adopts-m855a1-round/) from the original on 11 December 2017.
147. Lopez, Todd C. (9 May 2011). "Picatinny's Enhanced Performance Round as effective as
M855 round – consistently" ([Link]
[Link]/PicatinnyPublic/news/archive/2011/[Link]). Picatinny Arsenal. Archived from
the original ([Link] on
13 September 2012.
148. Kowal, Eric (28 August 2012). "Army's newest general purpose round shows accuracy in
rifle competition" ([Link] U.S. Army. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20130922012920/[Link] from the original on 22
September 2013.
149. "ATK Delivers More than 350 Million 5.56mm Enhanced Performance Rounds" ([Link]
[Link]/web/20121005032407/[Link]
ion-7.62mm-Rounds-to-the-U.S.-Army-from-the-Lake-City-Army-Ammunition-Plant-LCAAP).
Alliant Techsystems. 13 September 2012. Archived from the original ([Link]
om/2012-09-13-ATK-Delivers-2-Billion-7.62mm-Rounds-to-the-U.S.-Army-from-the-Lake-Cit
y-Army-Ammunition-Plant-LCAAP) on 5 October 2012.
150. Freedberg, Sydney J. Jr. (14 June 2013). "Army Killed New Carbine Because It Wasn't
Twice As Reliable As Current M4" ([Link]
carbine-because-it-wasnt-twice-as-good-as-current-m4/). Breaking Defense. Archived (http
s://[Link]/web/20130619035926/[Link]
d-new-carbine-because-it-wasnt-twice-as-good-as-current-m4/) from the original on 19 June
2013.
151. "Data Dump: Army 'Black Tip' Ammo" ([Link]
[Link]). [Link]. 5 May 2011. Archived ([Link]
21060040/[Link] from the
original on 21 September 2013.
152. "The M855A1" ([Link]
m/1/post/2017/11/[Link]). Small Arms Solutions, LLC. 12 November 2017.
Archived from the original ([Link]
on 21 April 2023.
153. Calloway, Audra (1 July 2013). "Picatinny ammo goes from regular to unleaded" ([Link]
[Link]/article/106710/Picatinny_ammo_goes_from_regular_to_unleaded/). U.S. Army.
Archived ([Link]
Picatinny_ammo_goes_from_regular_to_unleaded) from the original on 6 July 2013.
154. Bolding, Damon (5 March 2014). "Black Hills Ammunition" ([Link]
p/?p=2387). Small Arms Defense Journal. Vol. 6, no. 1. Archived ([Link]
b/20141025014437/[Link] from the original on 25
October 2014.
155. Fortier, David (July 2005). "Evolution of an AR - A look where the M16/AR-15 platform is
headed" ([Link]
content/evolution-ar). Guns & Ammo. Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]/content/evolution-ar) on 15 September 2011.
156. "5.56x45mm - 77 gr OTM - Black Hills (D556N9 - MK262 Mod 1-C) - 500 Rounds" ([Link]
[Link]/web/20230206214940/[Link]
-otm-black-hills-d556n9-500-rounds/). Black Hills Ammunition. Archived from the original (htt
ps://[Link]/gun-store/5-56x45mm-77-gr-otm-black-hills-d556n9-500-rounds/) on
6 February 2023.
157. Johnson, Steve (17 February 2010). "USMC adopt new 5.56mm MK318 MOD 0
ammunition" ([Link]
318-mod-0-ammunition/). The Firearm Blog. Archived ([Link]
0003658/[Link]
mod-0-ammunition/) from the original on 10 November 2012.
158. Johnson, Steve (27 May 2010). "Marines slow to field new ammo" ([Link]
[Link]/blog/2010/05/27/marines-slow-to-field-new-ammo/). The Firearm Blog. Archived (http
s://[Link]/web/20121114092301/[Link]
marines-slow-to-field-new-ammo/) from the original on 14 November 2012.
159. Johnson, Steve (14 July 2010). "Marines take a look at the new M855A1 round" ([Link]
[Link]/blog/2010/07/14/marines-take-a-look-at-the-new-m855a1-round/). The
Firearm Blog. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/blog/2010/07/14/marines-take-a-look-at-the-new-m855a1-round/) from the original
on 14 November 2012.
160. Sanborn, James K. (4 May 2015). "Army, Marines face new pressure to use same
ammunition" ([Link]
ory/military/tech/2015/05/04/army-marines-face-new-pressure-to-use-same-ammunition/266
57177/). Military Times. Archived from the original ([Link]
y/tech/2015/05/04/army-marines-face-new-pressure-to-use-same-ammunition/26657177/)
on 6 May 2015.
161. Bolding, Damon (30 January 2015). "Sal Fanelli: The Interview" ([Link]
[Link]/wp/?p=2879). Small Arms Defense Journal. Vol. 6, no. 4. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20150207185903/[Link] from the
original on 7 February 2015.
162. "Soldiers can keep guns at home but not ammo" ([Link]
_debate/Background/Archives/Soldiers_can_keep_guns_at_home_but_not_ammo.html?cid
=970614). [Link]. 27 September 2007. Archived ([Link]
02064014/[Link]
_can_keep_guns_at_home_but_not_ammo.html?cid=970614) from the original on 2
October 2012. Retrieved 16 March 2015.
163. "Swiss Ammunition Enterprise" ([Link] Cybershooters. 11
October 2003. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/?p=309) from the original on 29 August 2016. Retrieved 6 June 2015.
164. "Swiss Ammunition Enterprise" ([Link]
[Link]/). [Link]. Archived from the original ([Link] on
12 May 2008. Retrieved 29 May 2009.
165. "5.56 mm x 45 SINTOX® SWISS ORDNANCE cartridge fact sheet" ([Link]
web/20090617085229/[Link]
5.56mmx45_Sintox_SWISS_ORDNANCE.pdf) (PDF). RUAG Ammotec. Archived from the
original ([Link]
ntox_SWISS_ORDNANCE.pdf) (PDF) on 17 June 2009.

Further reading
Christ, Stan (2007). "5.56mm NATO Alternatives". Special Weapons Magazine. No. 50.
pp. 52–59.

External links
Media related to 5.56 x 45 mm NATO at Wikimedia Commons
"Brochure on 5.56mm F1 ball ammunition to NATO STANAG 4172" ([Link]
web/20080721072147/[Link] (PDF). ADI
Thales. Archived from the original ([Link]
f) (PDF) on 21 July 2008.
 "Direct Fire Ammunition Handbook" ([Link]
SHandbook_2021.pdf) (PDF). Project Manager Maneuver Ammunition Systems. 2021.

Retrieved from "[Link]