User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 12:34:56 PM EDT
[#1]
Shhh...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 12:43:31 PM EDT
[#2]
Ballistics wise, it's a poor performer, but it's good for target ammo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 1:00:57 PM EDT
[#3]
Wolf Gold is OOS now at AIM
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 1:34:36 PM EDT
[#4]
Try the GECO 55gr FMJ.... also VERY accurate for the price. SGAmmo.com has it.
And Fed. Tipped Varmint 50gr is fantastically accurate for $7.99 / 20 at PSA. Both of those have beaten many "match" rounds at 100yds from my rifles as well as others AR's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 1:57:01 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
I've found Wolf Gold to be the most accurate of the cheapo bulk ammo (that I've tried) after putting it up against Fed 55gr AE, 62gr M855, PMC M855 Xtac. I recently bought a case of Armscor 223 55gr (made in USA type), but have yet to test it for precision. Incidentally, AIM has WG back in stock at $300/case. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Aar15.com+%22Wolf+Gold%22 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 4:49:09 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ballistics wise, it's a poor performer, but it's good for target ammo. What do you prefer for ballistics on a budget? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 4:59:42 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ballistics wise, it's a poor performer, but it's good for target ammo. Terminal ballistics? Or do you mean long range due to a low coefficient? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 5:37:52 PM EDT
[#8]
Wolf Gold is aka Pvri Partizan ammo. Affordable target ammo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 5:38:44 PM EDT
[#9]
I mean terminal ballistics. Very thick jacket and around 75 fps slower than most M193, so it doesn't fragment well, esp at range.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What do you prefer for ballistics on a budget? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ballistics wise, it's a poor performer, but it's good for target ammo. What do you prefer for ballistics on a budget? Quality M193 like Federal, PMC Xtac, IMI, etc (which is just slightly more expensive than wolf gold) are good performers. Believe it or not, tula is even a good performer due to its tendency for early yaw. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 5:43:19 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I mean terminal ballistics. Very thick jacket and around 75 fps slower than most M193, so it doesn't fragment well, esp at range. Quality M193 like Federal, PMC Xtac, IMI, etc (which is just slightly more expensive than wolf gold) are good performers. Believe it or not, tula is even a good performer due to its tendency for early yaw. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I mean terminal ballistics. Very thick jacket and around 75 fps slower than most M193, so it doesn't fragment well, esp at range. Quoted:
Quoted:
Ballistics wise, it's a poor performer, but it's good for target ammo. What do you prefer for ballistics on a budget? Quality M193 like Federal, PMC Xtac, IMI, etc (which is just slightly more expensive than wolf gold) are good performers. Believe it or not, tula is even a good performer due to its tendency for early yaw. Have you seen gel tests of Wolf Gold? Last velocity data I saw guys were posting 3200fps from 20" barrels. That is right around where it should be. I just saw some gel data posted about Tula 62gr HP, that fragmentation and velocity was insane. I was shocked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 5:43:37 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wolf Gold is aka Pvri Partizan ammo. Affordable target ammo. No. No it is not. 
This has been regurgitated over and over and should stop. Wolf is an importer. They import ammunition from MANY different sources and countries. In the past, their Wolf Gold line of ammunition did have several options which were sourced from Prvi. However, not ALL Wolf Gold comes from there. The Wolf Gold in 5.56 that is being discussed is sourced from the supplier to the defense dept of Taiwan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 6:07:40 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wolf Gold is aka Pvri Partizan ammo. Affordable target ammo. I believe you are speaking of the 75gr round... while the OP is speaking of the Taiwanese supplied Wolf Gold 55gr FMJ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 6:15:32 PM EDT
[#13]
I have purchased wolf gold in many calibers and they all have the PPU headstamp. You may be right however. This is just from what my experiences have been from shooting match ammo even back to 2007.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 6:33:13 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have purchased wolf gold in many calibers and they all have the PPU headstamp. You may be right however. This is just from what my experiences have been from shooting match ammo even back to 2007. Previously, the majority of Wolf Gold has been sourced from Prvi. However, not all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 7:01:16 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ballistics wise, it's a poor performer, but it's good for target ammo. Link to ballistics test? I've been looking for ballistics info on WG since I bought my first case which was even before MAC did their review on it and haven't been able to find any. I've seen chrono results which are typically within 30fps of M193/XM193 I get that it has a thicker jacket, but unless we have some actual ballistics data, it's all just speculation |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 7:35:15 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you seen gel tests of Wolf Gold? Last velocity data I saw guys were posting 3200fps from 20" barrels. That is right around where it should be. I just saw some gel data posted about Tula 62gr HP, that fragmentation and velocity was insane. I was shocked. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I mean terminal ballistics. Very thick jacket and around 75 fps slower than most M193, so it doesn't fragment well, esp at range. Quoted:
Quoted:
Ballistics wise, it's a poor performer, but it's good for target ammo. What do you prefer for ballistics on a budget? Quality M193 like Federal, PMC Xtac, IMI, etc (which is just slightly more expensive than wolf gold) are good performers. Believe it or not, tula is even a good performer due to its tendency for early yaw. Have you seen gel tests of Wolf Gold? Last velocity data I saw guys were posting 3200fps from 20" barrels. That is right around where it should be. I just saw some gel data posted about Tula 62gr HP, that fragmentation and velocity was insane. I was shocked. That's actually around 75 fps less than it should be. The real issue, however, is the thicker jacket that it has. It has a very thick jacket. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 8:20:07 PM EDT
[#17]
I bought Wolf Gold as range ammo. Unless the Walking Dead takes off tomorrow, my 1,000 rounds will never hit soft flesh.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 8:26:53 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's actually around 75 fps less than it should be. The real issue, however, is the thicker jacket that it has. It has a very thick jacket. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I mean terminal ballistics. Very thick jacket and around 75 fps slower than most M193, so it doesn't fragment well, esp at range. Quoted:
Quoted:
Ballistics wise, it's a poor performer, but it's good for target ammo. What do you prefer for ballistics on a budget? Quality M193 like Federal, PMC Xtac, IMI, etc (which is just slightly more expensive than wolf gold) are good performers. Believe it or not, tula is even a good performer due to its tendency for early yaw. Have you seen gel tests of Wolf Gold? Last velocity data I saw guys were posting 3200fps from 20" barrels. That is right around where it should be. I just saw some gel data posted about Tula 62gr HP, that fragmentation and velocity was insane. I was shocked. That's actually around 75 fps less than it should be. The real issue, however, is the thicker jacket that it has. It has a very thick jacket. The milspec for M193 is 3165 +-40fps @ 78ft. Wolf Gold at 10ft avg 3224fps from user testing. That's 3125fps @ 78ft. So that is IN SPEC for M193, it is not 75fps slower. it is 40fps slower than the median value for M193 spec. On jacket thickness - what are you basing that on? Link to where someone melted out the core and weighed and measured the jacket? If you are basing that assumption on the appearance - this has been debunked. I did a review on the old Wolf M193 PRVI here: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_16/271478_Ammunition_review___Wolf_M193_Prvi_Partizan_M193.html Note the following pic: 
Is that a "thick jacket" ???? Note the cross section, this "thick jacket" is identical to IMI M193, they simply roll the jacket into the based on some manufacturers of M193 bullets. 
So until I see actual data, cross sections, gel tests, its all speculation. The only ding I can give it is that while it is still in spec for M193 velocity, it is a mere 40fps from the median. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 11:44:19 PM EDT
[#19]
Your velocity calculations are incorrect.
Here is a quote from Molon, Not quite. The velocity specification for M193 as cited in MIL-C-9963F states:
The average velocity of the sample cartridges, conditioned at 72 degrees, plus or minus 2 degrees Fahrenheit (F), shall be 3165 feet per second (ft/sec), plus or minus 40 ft/sec, at 78 feet from the muzzle of the weapon. The standard deviation of the velocities shall not exceed 40 ft/sec. The specification is for a 20” barrel. Dependent upon variables, this velocity specification equates to a muzzle velocity of approximately 3270 ft/sec, plus or minus 40 ft/sec. The lot of Wolf Gold that I chronographed from a 20" Colt M16A2 barrel had a muzzle velocity of 3213 FPS. For comparison, IMI M193 chronographed from the same barrel had a muzzle velocity of 3274 FPS. Not calculated muzzle velocity means that is not the actual reading which was done at ~ 15 feet or whatever. It was calculated based on the data he recorded at the distance he recorded it. This is inline with other chrony tests I have seen with Wolf gold which show it to have around 3,200 FPS muzzle velocity out of a 20" barrel. There may be some abberations where some people have clocked it slightly higher, but I have seen people get higher velocity readings from Fed and IMI M193 too, which would give them around 3,300 fps muzzle velocity. Any way you slice it, it's around a 75 fps difference. About the thicker jacket. There was a cross section done on the new wolf gold not long ago and the jacket indeed WAS thicker throughout, it was not just the base! The wolf gold that is pictured in your thread is the old privi version (basically privi m193). These are FACTs! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 1:47:42 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your velocity calculations are incorrect. Here is a quote from Molon, Not calculated muzzle velocity means that is not the actual reading which was done at ~ 15 feet or whatever. It was calculated based on the data he recorded at the distance he recorded it. This is inline with other chrony tests I have seen with Wolf gold which show it to have around 3,200 FPS muzzle velocity out of a 20" barrel. There may be some abberations where some people have clocked it slightly higher, but I have seen people get higher velocity readings from Fed and IMI M193 too, which would give them around 3,300 fps muzzle velocity. Any way you slice it, it's around a 75 fps difference. About the thicker jacket. There was a cross section done on the new wolf gold not long ago and the jacket indeed WAS thicker throughout, it was not just the base! The wolf gold that is pictured in your thread is the old privi version (basically privi m193). These are FACTs! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your velocity calculations are incorrect. Here is a quote from Molon, Not quite. The velocity specification for M193 as cited in MIL-C-9963F states:
The average velocity of the sample cartridges, conditioned at 72 degrees, plus or minus 2 degrees Fahrenheit (F), shall be 3165 feet per second (ft/sec), plus or minus 40 ft/sec, at 78 feet from the muzzle of the weapon. The standard deviation of the velocities shall not exceed 40 ft/sec. The specification is for a 20” barrel. Dependent upon variables, this velocity specification equates to a muzzle velocity of approximately 3270 ft/sec, plus or minus 40 ft/sec. The lot of Wolf Gold that I chronographed from a 20" Colt M16A2 barrel had a muzzle velocity of 3213 FPS. For comparison, IMI M193 chronographed from the same barrel had a muzzle velocity of 3274 FPS. Not calculated muzzle velocity means that is not the actual reading which was done at ~ 15 feet or whatever. It was calculated based on the data he recorded at the distance he recorded it. This is inline with other chrony tests I have seen with Wolf gold which show it to have around 3,200 FPS muzzle velocity out of a 20" barrel. There may be some abberations where some people have clocked it slightly higher, but I have seen people get higher velocity readings from Fed and IMI M193 too, which would give them around 3,300 fps muzzle velocity. Any way you slice it, it's around a 75 fps difference. About the thicker jacket. There was a cross section done on the new wolf gold not long ago and the jacket indeed WAS thicker throughout, it was not just the base! The wolf gold that is pictured in your thread is the old privi version (basically privi m193). These are FACTs! You are either not reading, or I am not doing a good job of explaining it. I provided the EXACT same data as you did for M193. With chrony data taken at 10' which was 3224 MEASURED velocity. That provides a muzzle velocity of 3237fps. You can absolutely calculate the muzzle velocity and the velocity at 78feet. The muzzle velocity reported from that lot was indeed 3237fps as measured, which is closer to 40 fps from your "3270" number. Now, this might have been a higher measurement than Molon got - but it was indeed a measured result. Arguing over your number being right vs my number is silly. It is just math, and my numbers are JUST as factual as yours, they are just different, as collected by two different people. If you want to cite other sources which corroborate that the ones I quoted were an anomaly, by all means.... but I haven't seen that. And I have see several other reports with higher velocity numbers as well. Yes, I clearly stated that my pictures were from the previous stuff. Restating that is blather. I am interested in a link to where the jacket was measured? I have not yet seen that. More data:http://forum.snipershide.info/showthread.php?t=236586 He averaged only 20fps slower (Wolf Gold) than his known 5.56 M193 control ammo. He measured jacket thickness and found it to be the same as other M193 ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 8:18:58 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are either not reading, or I am not doing a good job of explaining it. I provided the EXACT same data as you did for M193. With chrony data taken at 10' which was 3224 MEASURED velocity. That provides a muzzle velocity of 3237fps. You can absolutely calculate the muzzle velocity and the velocity at 78feet. The muzzle velocity reported from that lot was indeed 3237fps as measured, which is closer to 40 fps from your "3270" number. Now, this might have been a higher measurement than Molon got - but it was indeed a measured result. Arguing over your number being right vs my number is silly. It is just math, and my numbers are JUST as factual as yours, they are just different, as collected by two different people. If you want to cite other sources which corroborate that the ones I quoted were an anomaly, by all means.... but I haven't seen that. And I have see several other reports with higher velocity numbers as well. Yes, I clearly stated that my pictures were from the previous stuff. Restating that is blather. I am interested in a link to where the jacket was measured? I have not yet seen that. More data:http://forum.snipershide.info/showthread.php?t=236586 He averaged only 20fps slower (Wolf Gold) than his known 5.56 M193 control ammo. He measured jacket thickness and found it to be the same as other M193 ammo. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Your velocity calculations are incorrect. Here is a quote from Molon, Not quite. The velocity specification for M193 as cited in MIL-C-9963F states:
The average velocity of the sample cartridges, conditioned at 72 degrees, plus or minus 2 degrees Fahrenheit (F), shall be 3165 feet per second (ft/sec), plus or minus 40 ft/sec, at 78 feet from the muzzle of the weapon. The standard deviation of the velocities shall not exceed 40 ft/sec. The specification is for a 20” barrel. Dependent upon variables, this velocity specification equates to a muzzle velocity of approximately 3270 ft/sec, plus or minus 40 ft/sec. The lot of Wolf Gold that I chronographed from a 20" Colt M16A2 barrel had a muzzle velocity of 3213 FPS. For comparison, IMI M193 chronographed from the same barrel had a muzzle velocity of 3274 FPS. Not calculated muzzle velocity means that is not the actual reading which was done at ~ 15 feet or whatever. It was calculated based on the data he recorded at the distance he recorded it. This is inline with other chrony tests I have seen with Wolf gold which show it to have around 3,200 FPS muzzle velocity out of a 20" barrel. There may be some abberations where some people have clocked it slightly higher, but I have seen people get higher velocity readings from Fed and IMI M193 too, which would give them around 3,300 fps muzzle velocity. Any way you slice it, it's around a 75 fps difference. About the thicker jacket. There was a cross section done on the new wolf gold not long ago and the jacket indeed WAS thicker throughout, it was not just the base! The wolf gold that is pictured in your thread is the old privi version (basically privi m193). These are FACTs! You are either not reading, or I am not doing a good job of explaining it. I provided the EXACT same data as you did for M193. With chrony data taken at 10' which was 3224 MEASURED velocity. That provides a muzzle velocity of 3237fps. You can absolutely calculate the muzzle velocity and the velocity at 78feet. The muzzle velocity reported from that lot was indeed 3237fps as measured, which is closer to 40 fps from your "3270" number. Now, this might have been a higher measurement than Molon got - but it was indeed a measured result. Arguing over your number being right vs my number is silly. It is just math, and my numbers are JUST as factual as yours, they are just different, as collected by two different people. If you want to cite other sources which corroborate that the ones I quoted were an anomaly, by all means.... but I haven't seen that. And I have see several other reports with higher velocity numbers as well. Yes, I clearly stated that my pictures were from the previous stuff. Restating that is blather. I am interested in a link to where the jacket was measured? I have not yet seen that. More data:http://forum.snipershide.info/showthread.php?t=236586 He averaged only 20fps slower (Wolf Gold) than his known 5.56 M193 control ammo. He measured jacket thickness and found it to be the same as other M193 ammo. Keep in mind the control ammo was Winchester M193 (and not the relabeled IMI Winchester) which Molon measured as being the SLOWEST M193 out of the initial group he tested at an average of 3,199 fps. That would make the wolf gold even 20 fps slower than that, which would be more than a 75 fps difference! Attack of the M193 Clones! This video Clearly shows an average velocity of 3,045 fps for wolf gold out of a 16" barrel, which is near 100 fps slower than what Federal M193 usually measures from a 16". You want to use some high velocity claim (link to this testing?) to prove that wolf gold is only 40 fps slower than "Average" M193 loads. Well, why don't you compare your high test average to a high test average of M193 that clocked in at over 3,300 fps? That would still put you closer to the 75 fps difference mark. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 8:36:14 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I mean terminal ballistics. Very thick jacket and around 75 fps slower than most M193, so it doesn't fragment well, esp at range. Quality M193 like Federal, PMC Xtac, IMI, etc (which is just slightly more expensive than wolf gold) are good performers. Believe it or not, tula is even a good performer due to its tendency for early yaw. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I mean terminal ballistics. Very thick jacket and around 75 fps slower than most M193, so it doesn't fragment well, esp at range. Quoted:
Quoted:
Ballistics wise, it's a poor performer, but it's good for target ammo. What do you prefer for ballistics on a budget? Quality M193 like Federal, PMC Xtac, IMI, etc (which is just slightly more expensive than wolf gold) are good performers. Believe it or not, tula is even a good performer due to its tendency for early yaw. M193 is usually a 2-4 MOA load. Wolf Gold is 1.3-1.8 MOA in all the groups i've shot. Both are very reliable. Out of those two, for match shooting Wolf Gold and M193 if my life depended on it. Tula is garbage. I would never use it for matches and i sure as hell would never trust my life to it. Not a good choice for your argument. I have quit buying Tula for any shooting. It gets worse every box i buy. Quoted:
Quoted:
Wolf Gold is aka Pvri Partizan ammo. Affordable target ammo. I believe you are speaking of the 75gr round... while the OP is speaking of the Taiwanese supplied Wolf Gold 55gr FMJ. This. Regardless, PRVI is good stuff too. I would not cry if Wolf = PRVI. The only problem i have with PRVI is the M193 clone PRVI brass has huge primer crimps. It's bitch to ream. Wolf Gold is my favorite bulk ammo at this time. It is good enough, that i shoot it in 3 gun matches for targets within 200 yards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 9:04:02 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[You want to use some high velocity claim (link to this testing?) to prove that wolf gold is only 40 fps slower than "Average" M193 loads. Well, why don't you compare your high test average to a high test average of M193 that clocked in at over 3,300 fps? That would still put you closer to the 75 fps difference mark. I compare to the SPEC for M193. Comparing to other flavors which run too hot above the spec is silly to me. And we have seen issues from these, such as the recent IMI made Independence ammo that lots of people have reported issues with due to overpressure. The spec is from 3165 fps +- 40fps @78 ft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 10:32:40 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I compare to the SPEC for M193. Comparing to other flavors which run too hot above the spec is silly to me. And we have seen issues from these, such as the recent IMI made Independence ammo that lots of people have reported issues with due to overpressure. The spec is from 3165 fps +- 40fps @78 ft. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[You want to use some high velocity claim (link to this testing?) to prove that wolf gold is only 40 fps slower than "Average" M193 loads. Well, why don't you compare your high test average to a high test average of M193 that clocked in at over 3,300 fps? That would still put you closer to the 75 fps difference mark. I compare to the SPEC for M193. Comparing to other flavors which run too hot above the spec is silly to me. And we have seen issues from these, such as the recent IMI made Independence ammo that lots of people have reported issues with due to overpressure. The spec is from 3165 fps +- 40fps @78 ft. Ok, so you're comparing apples to oranges. You wanted to take a high average aberration for the wolf and compare it to the spec for M193. Why not compare Wolf's spec (average) to the average? Otherwise, I can cherry pick some Federal M193 tests that demonstrated velocities higher than the "spec" too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 10:46:09 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I compare to the SPEC for M193. Comparing to other flavors which run too hot above the spec is silly to me. And we have seen issues from these, such as the recent IMI made Independence ammo that lots of people have reported issues with due to overpressure. The spec is from 3165 fps +- 40fps @78 ft. It appears that some people participating in this thread are having a hard time understanding that whole ± thing. The spec for M193 works out to 3124 fps to 3205 fps, measured at 78 ft. Anything in that range, measured the same way, is in-spec. The thing that gets tricky is understanding that you don't have to measure AT 78 ft. to find out what that velocity is. There are very well established techniques to calculate muzzle velocity from chrony velocities at any given distance - and the same techniques can be used backward to calculate what the velocity would be at a given distance (i.e. 78 ft.). Here's one well presented explantation of the equations. Yes, it means one might have to use algebra, but one can do this on paper (with a calculator) without too much effort. If you know A velocity A distance, and the BC of the bullet, the rest is just "plug and chug" through the formula. I think that it's important for anyone checking out that link to note that one of the participants is actually a real live ballistician, published and everything. It ain't rocket science, but it IS bullet science, and it's not that hard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 11:28:08 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm with you. Comparing to the spec is the only way to determine whether something is "in-spec." It appears that some people participating in this thread are having a hard time understanding that whole ± thing. The spec for M193 works out to 3124 fps to 3205 fps, measured at 78 ft. Anything in that range, measured the same way, is in-spec. The thing that gets tricky is understanding that you don't have to measure AT 78 ft. to find out what that velocity is. There are very well established techniques to calculate muzzle velocity from chrony velocities at any given distance - and the same techniques can be used backward to calculate what the velocity would be at a given distance (i.e. 78 ft.). Here's one well presented explantation of the equations. Yes, it means one might have to use algebra, but one can do this on paper (with a calculator) without too much effort. If you know A velocity A distance, and the BC of the bullet, the rest is just "plug and chug" through the formula. I think that it's important for anyone checking out that link to note that one of the participants is actually a real live ballistician, published and everything. It ain't rocket science, but it IS bullet science, and it's not that hard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I compare to the SPEC for M193. Comparing to other flavors which run too hot above the spec is silly to me. And we have seen issues from these, such as the recent IMI made Independence ammo that lots of people have reported issues with due to overpressure. The spec is from 3165 fps +- 40fps @78 ft. It appears that some people participating in this thread are having a hard time understanding that whole ± thing. The spec for M193 works out to 3124 fps to 3205 fps, measured at 78 ft. Anything in that range, measured the same way, is in-spec. The thing that gets tricky is understanding that you don't have to measure AT 78 ft. to find out what that velocity is. There are very well established techniques to calculate muzzle velocity from chrony velocities at any given distance - and the same techniques can be used backward to calculate what the velocity would be at a given distance (i.e. 78 ft.). Here's one well presented explantation of the equations. Yes, it means one might have to use algebra, but one can do this on paper (with a calculator) without too much effort. If you know A velocity A distance, and the BC of the bullet, the rest is just "plug and chug" through the formula. I think that it's important for anyone checking out that link to note that one of the participants is actually a real live ballistician, published and everything. It ain't rocket science, but it IS bullet science, and it's not that hard. The high end aberration average from ONE supposed test of wolf gold (still waiting to see source / documentation of said test) is barely within the lower limits of the M193 spec. The documented test result average velocities of wolf gold that we have access to (around 3,200 muzzle velocity) demonstrate a speed that is well under even the low range of the M193 spec. Likewise the jacket thickness and cannelure are not within M193 spec either. And you're right, it is easy to calculate muzzle velocity and velocity at 78 ft with the proper calculation software. I've found Federal's ballistics calculator to be excellent and very accurate. https://www.federalpremium.com/ballistics_calculator/ Generally, one measures velocity at ~ 15 feet (5 yards) and at that distance you're looking at ~ 20 fps less than what the round's velocity would be at the muzzle according to the software. Those supposed test results of 3224fps average at 10 feet equate to a muzzle velocity of 3,235 fps according to Federal's ballistic software, which equates to around 3,137 fps at 78 feet according to the same software results. That is only 2 fps within the low spec for the AVERAGE of that supposed test's string. Since there were many shots that were below that velocity to create that AVERAGE, then even your higher velocity test aberrations are out of spec, as every round is supposed to fall within that 3,165 - /+40 fps range at 78 feet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 11:49:15 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The high end aberration average from ONE supposed test of wolf gold (still waiting to see source / documentation of said test) http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_16/623913__ARCHIVED_THREAD____Wolf_Gold__223_55gr_.html&page=1#i6189988 Hopefully you can stop using the word "supposed" which is really close to "bullshit". 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 11:55:45 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Likewise the jacket thickness and cannelure are not within M193 spec either. You have not offered one shred of data backing this up, so these are baseless claims until then. 
I have provided data where a user measured the jacked and found it to be the same. Where is this data about the cannelure? And where is the spec on how the cannelure should be applied to M193 spec ammo? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 12:30:12 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_16/623913__ARCHIVED_THREAD____Wolf_Gold__223_55gr_.html&page=1#i6189988 Hopefully you can stop using the word "supposed" which is really close to "bullshit". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The high end aberration average from ONE supposed test of wolf gold (still waiting to see source / documentation of said test) http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_16/623913__ARCHIVED_THREAD____Wolf_Gold__223_55gr_.html&page=1#i6189988 Hopefully you can stop using the word "supposed" which is really close to "bullshit". Ahhh, so the extremely high altitude + high temperatures are what most likely contributed to the higher than average velocity. 1030 ft altitude is high. Keep in mind the 78 foot test for M193 requires a certain temperature and altitude. Even so, the Wolf gold is still out of spec velocity wise! I don't remember who posted it, but someone here in an earlier thread posted pictures after cutting through one of the jackets. It was much thicker than the other M193 bullets he bisected. ***EDIT: I just found the thread, it was member 2IS who posted it http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=652605 . I just grinded down the end of the Wolf Gold bullet flat, and the jacketing is most definitely thicker than Federal XM193 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 12:38:13 PM EDT
[#30]
yes wolf gold is bad
very very bad ammo it will simply bounce of your enemy's like bb's NO ONE should buy any of it...... its bad..... dont buy it... please dont buy it..... in order to save you I will buy all your worthless wolf gold at half price 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 3:00:41 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wolf Gold is aka Pvri Partizan ammo. Affordable target ammo. Actually it isn't. Wolf Gold USED to be made by Privi; now it's made in Taiwan (I think). I like the thick brass - makes my barrels feel NIIIIIIIIICE. It is also just MORE deadly as any of the other bulk ammos - not because of fragmentation, but because I hit all of my targets right between the eyes, and <2MOA ammo is required for that. With 3-4MOA Federal or PMC, I might hit them in the nose instead. Pffft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 3:23:38 PM EDT
[#32]
With soooooo many excellent choices for defense ammo, such as the numerous bonded, TSX, and other choices, why are we arguing the terminal ballistics of Wolf Gold in a thread about cheap plinking ammo.
Wolf Gold is very good general plinking and "target" ammo at a fair price. Most of us don't give a flying F*%# about the jacket thickness or frag range. Can we just talk about target or plinking ammo without a debate on terminal ballistics.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 5:03:20 PM EDT
[#33]
I didn't intend to get in on this, but I have to ask:
Quote HistoryQuoted:...so the extremely high velocity + high temperatures are what most likely contributed to the higher than average velocity. Assuming you mean high altitude and high velocity..? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 6:20:39 PM EDT
[#34]
It may not be "real" XM193, but it is cheap, accurate and I have not had a single ammo related malfunction in 600 rounds. I use it for plinking and short range 3-gun. It works great.
ETA: Everything I've shot is the Taiwanese stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 9:21:09 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't intend to get in on this, but I have to ask: Assuming you mean high altitude and high velocity..? Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't intend to get in on this, but I have to ask: Quoted:...so the extremely high velocity + high temperatures are what most likely contributed to the higher than average velocity. Assuming you mean high altitude and high velocity..? Yes, I meant altitude. Not sure how that happened, but I've corrected it. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 11:21:20 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With soooooo many excellent choices for defense ammo, such as the numerous bonded, TSX, and other choices, why are we arguing the terminal ballistics of Wolf Gold in a thread about cheap plinking ammo. Wolf Gold is very good general plinking and "target" ammo at a fair price. Most of us don't give a flying F*%# about the jacket thickness or frag range. Can we just talk about target or plinking ammo without a debate on terminal ballistics.... This is a technical forum and technical data is being discussed. Terminal ballistics is interesting to some people. If you don't like it, simply remove yourself from the thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 11:33:20 PM EDT
[#37]
I need some data on how often it comes in stock. I'm getting the emails but keep missing it. Kind of like the BCM's BCG last year.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 1:52:57 AM EDT
[#38]
You can back order from sportsmans guide.... I think it has a estimated deliver of 5/24 or something like that. I've been getting if for 27/28 cents a round from them (the 260 round is actually cheaper than the 500 or 1000 rounds)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 1:59:30 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I need some data on how often it comes in stock. I'm getting the emails but keep missing it. Kind of like the BCM's BCG last year. If you're okay with $298/1000, its in stock now |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 12:01:33 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I need some data on how often it comes in stock. I'm getting the emails but keep missing it. Kind of like the BCM's BCG last year. If you're okay with $298/1000, its in stock now Just ordered a case and was coming here to post this....Thanks DJ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 4:03:35 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just ordered a case and was coming here to post this....Thanks DJ. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I need some data on how often it comes in stock. I'm getting the emails but keep missing it. Kind of like the BCM's BCG last year. If you're okay with $298/1000, its in stock now Just ordered a case and was coming here to post this....Thanks DJ. I want thinking of buying a case or 3, but the dryer shit the bed and $1086 later we're getting a new appliance instead of more ammo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 10:41:55 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I need some data on how often it comes in stock. I'm getting the emails but keep missing it. Kind of like the BCM's BCG last year. If you're okay with $298/1000, its in stock now Thank you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:23:34 AM EDT
[#43]
I got $20 shipping at the link above, .32 cents a round is good?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 2:00:51 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I got $20 shipping at the link above, .32 cents a round is good? Sure doesn't suck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 3:48:28 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure doesn't suck. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I got $20 shipping at the link above, .32 cents a round is good? Sure doesn't suck. Could be better.....I'd try for less. Around 28 or less is my buy price for Wolf Gold, and I shoot it a lot. Above 30 something cents is only for the rare(very rare) M855 buy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 9:19:08 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Could be better.....I'd try for less. Around 28 or less is my buy price for Wolf Gold, and I shoot it a lot. Above 30 something cents is only for the rare(very rare) M855 buy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I got $20 shipping at the link above, .32 cents a round is good? Sure doesn't suck. Could be better.....I'd try for less. Around 28 or less is my buy price for Wolf Gold, and I shoot it a lot. Above 30 something cents is only for the rare(very rare) M855 buy. Don't tease...where have you found WG for 28¢ per round? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 9:35:06 AM EDT
[#47]
I listed above where I'm getting it at .27 cents a round but you have to play the game.... member, wait for double discount (for quantities I buy, free shipping is probably better for less)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 9:42:50 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't tease...where have you found WG for 28¢ per round? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I got $20 shipping at the link above, .32 cents a round is good? Sure doesn't suck. Could be better.....I'd try for less. Around 28 or less is my buy price for Wolf Gold, and I shoot it a lot. Above 30 something cents is only for the rare(very rare) M855 buy. Don't tease...where have you found WG for 28¢ per round? The last time I bought it was $275 per K in a 50 cal ammo can from the-armory.com. plus shipping of course. But that was a sweet deal with the can. But on this last shipment which is still trickling in, $299 seems to be the going rate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 11:06:53 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I listed above where I'm getting it at .27 cents a round but you have to play the game.... member, wait for double discount (for quantities I buy, free shipping is probably better for less) This. Waiting to use a discount coupon code and free shipping. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:48:12 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I listed above where I'm getting it at .27 cents a round but you have to play the game.... member, wait for double discount (for quantities I buy, free shipping is probably better for less) Got it. The shop and wait bit was what I was missing... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
