JJREA, your post makes a lot of good points and makes sense where many fail to.  The first thing that most people want to do is jump on the cool kid bandwagon of whatever is in style with their fellow cool kids and disown anything that isn't in style at that moment.  The 1/9 is a great choice for almost all of your average shooters, and the 1/12 isn't bad either for about half of the average shooters.  I would love to see someone do a lot more testing on some ballistics gel as well with the same bullet designs in different weights.  I think some of the heavy weight bullet fans would be surprised.  There are advantages to each, but for most situations I will take my lighter 55 grain stuff over the heavier 77 grain stuff.  That goes against almost anyone on this sight but I don't care to stand out.  In a FMJ style round the lighter rounds are going to fragment much easier and more violently due to the velocity advantage.  But the 77s are going to penetrate better and be better for longer range shooting.  In a HP/SP style bullet the velocity isn't quite as important and balances itself out a little bit, but generally the lighter stuff is always going to fragment for a longer distance due to the increase in velocity.  And the lighter stuff is going to be your best option in a short barreled SBR where the heavier stuff is already on the verge of not fragmenting/expanding due to velocity.  Not much changes for longer barrels except the range just extends.  These are just my opinions.

Edited to add to the poster above me - Most of the time by long range I think most mean 500+ yards or so.  Even M193 works very well to 500 and a little past.  The 69-77s have a real advantage at the 500+ point due to retaining their velocity better as well as less wind drift.  But both 69 and 77 grn rounds are probably within what the 5.56 round is capable of and even the 69s are capable of shooting quite well at longer ranges.  I doubt most people would ever tell that much of a difference in the 2 except for the longest distance shooters that like to push 223 to 1000.

that's not necessarily so.  every round has a different velocity threshold for fragmentation.  and 77gr Mk262 fragments out to a greater distance than M193/M855 in all barrel lengths



 













than you also have to take into account whether or not a round is yaw dependent (M193/M855/Mk262) or not yaw dependent (MK318/M855A1/TMK)



 

Fragmentation?  Why be concerned with that?  We are not in armed services with Hague Convention limitations on bullet design.

Superior performance will be found across the board with use of expanding soft point bullets with jackets designed for the task at hand, whether thin for varmints or heavier for tactical use or for hunting larger game.  Speer Gold Dot 64 grain soft points, come to mind.

And there are the long for weight monolithic bullets that offer violent expansion and also penetrate deep and leave good exit wounds, like Barnes TSX, TTSX and Hornady GMX.

We need to realize that terminal ballistics for non-military use are far beyond consideration of fragmentation concepts.

FWIW:   Barnes 62 grain TSX are very long but still stabilize in 1:9.  The 70 grain TSX does not, at least not in my barrel.  These bullets do NOT fragment at all, except perhaps losing their razor edged petals when shot through windshields (the lighter versions), and easily meet all FBI penetration criteria while having violent expansion.

These bullets do require that the velocity be above the minimum to produce expansion.  That data is widely available, but should perform well even in SBRs as long as range remains within the velocity envelope.

Why are we limiting ourselves to M193/M855 or other  type military ammo that depends on fragmentation?  If that's all you have, or plan to use, fragmentation matters.  I use that ammo for non-critical use, though, like training or range practice, but use bullets proven for hunting and civilian law enforcement roles for shooting at real live tissue.

The bullets of which I speak are not "cool kid" stuff, unless you say that those of us who are hunters and have been using such expanding bullets on game for thirty or more years have stumbled onto something new and fashionable.  I assure you we have not.  This is almost "old school."

Good post.  I do not shoot heavy bullets for terminal performance.  I shoot heavy bullets entirely for better wind tolerance at extended ranges.  55 bullets are just fine for 200 yards.  Past that, and wind effects do start showing up in a hurry.  I use 75 gr for 300 yards, and 80 gr for 600 yards.  The mechanical accuracy of the bullets is the same across all of them (so long as quality).  The difference is the heavy bullets are not deflected so much by subtle wind changes between shots, and you effectively get more accuracy on paper at the longer ranges, where wind effects show up.  Shooting heavy bullets at 100 yards is a waste of extra lead.

Back to terminal performance.  223 is a varmint round.  It is designed to be a light bullet at very high velocity with the near explosive terminal behavior, and merely adequate penetration.  For military and home-defense applications, I do not value heavier bullets, and often consider them a detriment.  They have a notably higher recoil and make the gun harder to control (no, it's not a discomfort issue), while lacking that near-hyper velocity terminal effect.  They are only of benefit in my eyes, if the target is at an extended range (i.e. pushing past 300 yards), or is an animal that requires deeper penetration.  I tend to not see the point of a 14.5" carbine shooting heavy 75 bullets most of the time, since that platform isn't really intended for the longer ranges, yet that's the spec many want to cater to now.  

So while my 1/9 carbines can struggle with 75 gr, in the vast majority of situations, that's not the right bullet for it anyway.   But I do see the value of wanting to be able to do it anyway (why not?), and I think a 1/8 is really getting closer to the better compromise twist.  Is 1/8 really that much different than 1/7, are we just splitting hairs here?  I really don't know, but the guys making National Match barrels for competitors often seem to think so.  There's probably a reason most manufactures who are targeting 80 gr projectiles, will do things like 1/8 or even 1/7.7 - but do everything they can to stay away from 1/7.  Some make them, for guys shooting 90 gr bullets, but it's not the standard.  Same with LaRue - they won't make a 1/7.  My next upper may well be 1/7, but only if 1/8 isn't available.

Fair point.  For me, I buy it cheap and stack it deep.  My inventory logistic train is about volume and quality first, and terminal performance second.  So it's bulk 55 ball, bulk 55 soft tip (which have pretty darned good terminal performance - for the price, I think), Hornady 75 gr OTM and Sierra 80 gr SMK for the high power competition.

Thank you for the compliment.  I'm not trying to dis the heavier rounds.  Because a 1/7 barrel withe some 5.56 of 77 grain variety (or something similar) is probably the most effective way to go, for a broader range of accuracy and being lethal.  

Yet I've read accounts of people on this sight that have BTDT that have attested to the effectiveness of M855 at distance.  Read several hundred yards.  I won't namedrop because I don't want to drag people into an "argument".  Which hopefully I'm not trying to be.  I'm just saying I PERSONALLY am OK with using M193 and M855 for serous purposes.   It's more in my budget and falls into the "good enough" category for me if crap got bad enough that I'd be shooting my AR at someone else.  (If LEO or Soldier, then it's best to use the best, obviously.  If you have a choice in the matter)

But one thing I'd like to add is wind is a taskmaster.  I think.  My range is right on Lake Michigan and it's rare that there isn't some kind of wind.  The heavier bullets WILL buck the wind better at distance.  I've never noticed a difference at 100 yards.   But past that, the wind will move M193 a lot more.  I actually haven't shot M855 at distance at all because I've shot very little of it.  But I like what I have shot.  Back when I first started shooting AR's and bought ammo to a degree, M855 was less available and a lot more expensive than it is now.  I might change my go to round to M855 now.  

But yeah, I really think the match bullets between 52-69 grains have the potential to be deadly and I really wish there were tests out there on them.  The downside to those rounds is MK262 has primer sealant and I think cannelures.  I think.  And I'm guessing the Hornady loadings do too, but I'm not really sure.  Black Hills blue match ammo doesn't have any of that stuff, I don't think, and is a consideration.  

This post makes a lot of sense.  M193/855 and other purely military loads that are Hague compliant are anachronisms for other uses.  Use good premium hunting or law enforcement bullets on live tissue, tailored for the intended target -- light varmint bullets for . . . varmints, and more heavily constructed bullets for tactical and deer sized game.  Keep distances sensible because the 5.56 retained energy falls off badly after 200 yards.   But, if you are target shooting beyond 200 yards, absolutely use long, high BC heavier bullets for better wind-bucking ability   You don't need to be concerned about retained energy or terminal ballistics when all you are doing is punching a hole in paper . At 100 yard benchrest, use lighter 52-55 grain SMK's or Bergers with a flat base.   In none of this does M193/855 play any role beyond practice rounds, or as a fall back stockpile of bulk ammo that might have to be pressed into service after the good stuff is gone.

I don't really disagree.  For me price is a huge factor.  Another factor is shift in POI from the more expensive rounds to the cheaper stuff.  It can be an issue with some of my AR's.    There are so many more choices than there were 10 years ago.  That is good!  But in the end, I've seen what M193 can do at closer distance on animals and I'm good with staying with it.  

Another question that nags me, which might be a crazy question, but maybe not, and that is, armor is so much more available today.  What if somebody who broke into your house had some on?  What would be the "best" round for the job then?  It seems to me like the rounds with a bit thicker jackets might be better for that.  But in all honesty, I don't really know.    But to me M193 is a good compromise for all things.  Shooting in volume, killing a hog / deer, and a GP round for SHTF.

My pistols are my HD guns....  there again a compromise and I'd be up the creek if they did have armor on.  I guess that's when I'd run back to my room and grab my AR if at home.    After aiming at the legs and head and missing???  

https://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/#mozTocId803443

For penetrating armor the M193 is probably one of the best for steel plates, and the M885 is probably one of the best for Ceramic plates.  At least that is what I have found out from the little research I have done on it.  With armor, velocity is also important - very important.  Bullet design is important as well, but I think velocity is just as important.  

And I did not say that everyone should be shooting M193 or that it would work better then the heavier stuff that is made for defensive use.  But compare the same style of rounds, not different styles.  Meaning I don't think it is fair to compare a M193 round to a 70 grain TSX round.  But compare a 55 grain TSX to a 70 grain TSX and see what the results are with the exact same bullet design.  I know that M193 and M885 are some of the worst choices available for defensive use, but when the M193 works it works very very well.  Compare a M193 round that fragments out of a 20" barrel to some of the hollow point defensive rounds and you may be surprised.  The bad thing is, they do not always fragment and it isn't reliable.  It is more velocity dependent then a defensive round designed to expand, and probably at least 1/3 of the rounds will never fragment.  Using the M885 only makes matters worse and serves no advantage except for penetration at longer ranges on hard objects.  This is why if I had my choice of rounds I would choose a lighter 50-55 grain TSX style round for defense, and a heavier 77 grain of some sort for longer range shooting.  But the M193 is cheap, and a great back up if you can't afford to stock up on a lot of the good stuff.

This guy named AR15kittykat used to post on here and he hog hunted a lot.  He used a 16" carbine with one of them honking arms rails that attached to the reciever and he ALWAYS used Q3131A.  Now the 'A" might perform differently that the regular ole Q3131.  It was made by the israeli's and I don't know if it still is.  I'm thinking this new IMI that midway selling might be something to look into.  But the thing is he always had AAR's and the rounds worked.  Done deal.  No questions asked and there were several hunts he posted.  And the pics of the damage was pretty, effective.  

But yeah, they might not always fragment.  As far as the M855 goes, I hear ya.  I just know what I've heard.  

I do think some of these newer rounds out might be a good thing.  But here again, freaking cost.........

You will hear that the M885 works well, because it isn't that much different then the M193.  But if you were to shoot numerous rounds of M885 vs M193 out of different barreled length guns on soft tissue I think you would find that the M193 works better for tissue damage.  I think generally the average penetration distance before fragmentation is greater then the average of M193.  And the M193 will also fragment for a longer range due to the added 150FPS or so.  But the M885 will work great most of the time, and there won't be that much difference over an M193 round I wouldn't think.  I would just never pay more for it, or even choose it at the same price unless my only goal was to shoot hard objects at distances greater then 200-300 yards.

Edited to add- Thanks for the charts above nonetheless I will look over them a little bit more.  But I see that the M193 fragmentation velocity is set at 2700fps and the others are lower.  From the little I have seen it seems that instead of 2700 fps it should be 2500 fps.  I wonder if that was unfairly based, as there are other tests out there that clearly show fragmentation at 2500 fps.  But of course not as much fragmentation as at 2700 fps, but 2700 wont be as much as 3200 and so on.  Depends what their standards are for that test and if they were compared evenly.

Gotcha.  I hear reports that sometimes it's more accurate.  I shot some through my AR last month.  I wasn't doing an anal, detailed analysis.  But it did seem like the M855 I shot were tighter in precision than the M193 I shot.

Probably just the batch of ammo that was more accurate, but maybe not.  Your barrel may like the M855 better.  It seems like that on average most peoples rifles shoot M193 better then M885 but not everyones.  I think this is due to the bullet design - where the M193 is solid inside the M885 has a light piece of steel inside the bullet that may change positions slightly and cause a slight loss in accuracy.  Not sure how true this is, but I have read it on the internet so it is probably true.

Molons test results

 

Maybe so....

I can't see the link mcantu!!!!  Gots to see MOLONS THREAD!!!!!!  

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_16/511804_Attack_of_the__M193__Clones.html&page=1



 

Nice.  Every barrel be prejudiced though.  Those israeli's seem to know how to make ammo though.

i had similar results with various foreign M855/SS109 type rounds from a 1:9 AUG...



http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_16/679478_Foreign_SS109_Variants_Test.html



 

light varmit bullets don't penetrate enough, FBI specs require 12" of penetration in calibrated gelatin




75-77gr are much better choices for defense

BTHP aren't "varmint" bullets.  As we know they're not really designed to expand.   I did find a test from I think a member here, who did the 69's.  I forget his name.  "The Chopping Block" is what his youtube name is, I think.  The 69's only went like 10.5" in his test.  He got 13" from the 75 bthp.  So.....  I might have gotten my answer there.  It'd be nice if there were a few more tests to verify.  But that's not very promising.  I was kind of hoping the 52-62 MIGHT act a bit like M193.  But I know the jacket is a lot thinner on the BTHP bullets.  

But after watching some other M193 tests, I still say it looks good.  

And yes, I understand the concern behind M855.  I personally think bone might change that picture a bit.   But I'm not going to sit here and argue that it's great or as good as the heavier loads.  

There was a test of the MK318 that mrgunsngear did, or someone else, that had gobs of penetration.  That might be a good one for slower twist barrels.   And I think the Federal Fusion 62 grain might have adequate penetration also.

I can't see most of the pics in the above post.  But I wouldn't use varmint tipped bullets on any soft target unless I knew he was only wearing soft clothes.  I wouldn't be afraid to use a lightweight varmint round even a 40-45 grain bullet as long as I was for sure he didn't have heavy gear or plates on.  It would not be my first choice, but I bet it would cause one hell of a wound.  Compare something like the TSX instead of varmint bullets.  Just beacuse it is a lighter weight doesn't mean it won't penetrate enough to do its job you just can't compare a varmint tipped bullet to something not designed for varmint.  Apples to oranges.

A good compromise would be a 1-7.7 or 1-8.   I have zero interest in a 1-9" gun.

The 1:14” twist was shit-canned before the first Colt AR-15 Sporter was ever released on the US commercial market and before the M16 was ever adopted by the US military. This was because the 1:14” twist only produces a gyroscopic stability factor of 1.13 for the M193 projectile at an ambient temperature of 70 degrees F and at an ambient temperature of 32 degrees F, the M193 projectile is unstable from the 1:14” twist.







Those “longest bullets” are the ones that produce the best terminal ballistic properties in non-barrier blind situations.





And many 1:9” twist barrels won’t.  Almost all of the 1:9” twist barrels that I tested the Sierra 77 grain MatchKing in showed poor accuracy compared to 1:8” - 1:7" twist barrels.








Not so much.  As an example, the 55 grain bullet in M193 will have a gyroscopic stability factor of approximately 4.25 when fired from a 14.5” Colt M4 barrel.  When the same M193 round is fired from a 20” Colt A2 barrel, the gyroscopic stability factor of the 55 grain bullet only increases to approximately 4.27.

While the increased RPM due to the faster velocity will act to increase the bullet stability, the increased velocity also “increases the force applied to the nose of the bullet at the center of pressure and strengthens the overturning aerodynamic torque which actually makes the bullet less stable.”* These two opposing dynamics are the reason for the miniscule increase in gyroscopic stability factor.


* From Applied Ballistcs For Long-Range Shooting by Bryan Litz

Flat-out false.  Hornady 75 grain TAP T2 fired from a 14.5” barrel will have a conservative reliable fragmentation range of 155 yards.

On the other hand, 55 grain M193 fired from a 14.5” barrel will only have a reliable fragmentation range of 77 yards.  Even then, it’s only going to perform “as advertised” approximately 15% of the time.






...






Please post pics of your 10-shot groups of M193 fired from a semi-automatic AR-15 at a distance of 500 yards.


...

I have read a lot of your work Molon and find it interesting.  Just recently I remember reading you say that exact same thing about the velocity not playing much of a part on the stability and was quite surprised.  I don't have any personal experience with a bullet that will not stabilize from one barrel length but it will from another so I will not argue the point and agree that you are probably right on this.  But I have read a few posts in the past that mention they wouldn't have certain bullets stabilize from a shorter barrel length only to find out they would stabilize in their longer barrel lengths.  It may not have even been the barrel length so much as to a slightly different twist rate since every manufacturer is slightly different.  But it is something that I think would be neat if tested by someone by finding a bullet that is questionable and use the same barrel while cutting down the barrel lengths.  I suppose the easier way to do this would be to load some ammunition yourself and reduce the load slightly to decrease the velocity.  Wouldn't this have the same impact and be fairly easy to do?

And I know all about the 1/14 twist and how it was phased out in the late stages of the model 601 due to stability issues.  But the point I was making is that for most of my uses that even the 1/14 is fine.  I plan to get a couple from Green Mountain to build a couple Retro builds with.  My uncle carried a 1/14 in Vietnam while everyone else with him had the newer 1/12s, so it is sort of a remembrance type thing for me more then anything else.  But one thing that is very interesting is his reports of the wounds from the 1/14 compared to all the others from the 1/12 twists.  In the 100+ degree heat of Vietnam and not having to shot at a great distance the 1/14 worked great for him and he loved it.  According to his descriptions there was quite a bit of difference in the wounds from the 2 different twists.  I never remember reading at exactly what temperature the Air Force was having issues with the 1/14 only that it was in Arctic conditions and always assumed it was probably sub 0 degree weather and not just 32 or below weather.  Any historical evidence on this that you know of other then what the calculator shows us?  Just curious

And I never said that all 1/9 twists will stabilize most 77 grain rounds.  I don't know if you were implying I meant that or not.  I said "some" for a reason.  I was only stating what I knew worked and figured it was worth pointing out that "some" 77 grain bullets work in "some" 1/9 twist barrels.  Doesn't matter to me like it matters to the others anyways, I really don't have much use for the heavier stuff for my purposes.  You can keep the 77s for defense if you want but I am happy with the lighter rounds.  I know I am not an expert on this matter and don't try to come off as one.  I just like to help other people out and give them the information as I know best.  My opinions are mine, and I usually try stating that with anything that may be questionable by others.  I hope nobody takes offense to the way I say things or the way I speak my opinions, I mean no disrespect by it and it is often hard to tell in what tone someone is speaking from since this is the internet.  I have no intention of arguing with anyone on a subject and if I am wrong I don't care to admit it.  But I am also very skeptical of what some people consider factual on the internet since many things have been proven wrong over the years or are only based upon one set of circumstances someone did long ago.

Because fragmenting heavy OTM bullets cause more tissue damage in humans than expanding bullets, in non-barrier blind situations.







False.   See my above statement.


.....




Please post the scientific definition used in the field of terminal ballistics for "violent expansion."


...

I think you stated your position well.  I think they really don't like if people tend to promote the lighter bullets for serious use, well or at least the ones that have found to not penetrate to FBI standards, because they don't want new people getting the wrong idea.  Like some new guy.  And really the shallower the penetration, maybe the more likely you won't stop a threat.  But we're all adults, well most of us are, and we should come to whatever conclusions we do and live with it.  I may be a little dense sometimes about my own conclusions and choices, but it's a free country.

I think the point is that the heavier bullets really are the best choices for self defense.  And you typically need a faster twist barrel to utilize them properly.

I see you have another wonderful post targeted at me so here goes.  I really don't consider the 14.5" an SBR, I mean I know it is but come on.  I am mostly talking about 7.5-11.5" barrels.  I know the heavier stuff will expand/fragment but I am NOT comparing expanding ammo to non expanding M193.  I have said that clearly more then once but you guys keep mixing up my words to prove whatever point you wish.  If you compared something with the same bullet then that is fine.  Like if they made a 55 grain Tap T2, compare that to your 75 grain you mentioned and tell me what the fragmentation range is between the both of them.  

And I don't know if you are implying that M193 only fragments 15% of the time or not by the "as advertised" comment but if so that is the first I have ever heard that.  By reading your words I think you may be meaning that it only fragments reliably 15% of the time whenever it is already at it's lowest velocity to fragment.  That would make sense to me if that is what you meant.  I am still not trying to compare M193 to any of the heavier rounds made for defense and I am sure someone else will come along and say something else about how M193 compares to another heavy round in this or that.  I don't know how clearly I can say that I know M193 isn't equal to a round made for expansion!  Compare something that is identical just a different weight and I will listen to your argument a little better without thinking you are just jumping on anyone that doesn't prefer the heavy rounds.

And I am not going to go out and shoot a 500 yard target just to prove a point.  I think anyone that has ever shot M193 at longer ranges knows it is adequate for human torso sized shots.  Did I EVER say it was best?  Hell no I didn't.  I just said it works very well to 500, not the best or not ideal.  I know the heavier rounds are going to work a lot better at longer ranges and shoot tighter group sizes with less wind drift.  But that does NOT mean you can't hit your target at 500 yards.  I am not shooting matches like some of you, all I care about is shooting idiots/assholes who need shot if it ever comes to that in a SHTF/ Defense situation.  And from past experiences I can make hits on target at 500 very regularly with M193.  I haven't done it in awhile nor do I have the range set up to do so now.  You don't have to believe what I say, and I don't really care if you do or not.  It just seems like you are trying to attack anything I say and twist my words around, but I guess I should have expected that since I didn't praise the awesomeness of the heavy 77 grain rounds.  It is hard for me to keep a civil style reply when it seems like your only goal is to belittle anyone that goes against what you believe.  If you disagree or even know that we are wrong that is fine, but coming across the way you do makes you seem like a jerk.  Sorry if you aren't and mean well, as I said this is the internet and it is hard to decipher someones tone at times.  

Either way I think I am done with this discussion if it is just going to be continual rude comments directed the way they have been.  I said my peace

“Fair”?  What does “fair” have to do with selecting a round with the best terminal ballistic properties for use in self-defense?  I’m going to select the most UNFAIR round in this caliber that money can buy to defend the lives of my loved ones.


...

You really find M193 only will fragment 15% of the time at 77 yards??  Or so?  Yikers.  That doesn't seem like good odds.  LOL.

I guess I should really get some 75's and see if my 14.7 1/9 will stabilize them.  


OK, so humor me, what round do you think would be the best to run if you were stuck with a 14.5 1/9?

Please post data obtained following the scientific standards for terminal ballistic testing that supports your claim.






Dr Martin Fackler says otherwise . . .




















The M855 projectile has a higher ballistic coefficient than the M193 projectile.  Using an average muzzle velocity of 3255 FPS fired from a 20” barrel, M193 will have a reliable fragmentation range of 139 yards.  Using an average muzzle velocity of 3113 FPS fired from a 20” barrel, M855 will have a reliable fragmentation range of 132 yards.








Dr. Martin Fackler, the foremost authority on the terminal ballistic properties of M193 says otherwise.



....

I posted the terminal ballistic testing results obtained by an  expert in the field of terminal ballistics in this thread:


Federal 62 Grain Gold Medal:  Velocity, Accuracy and Terminal Ballistics



....

See "The Best Choices For Self Defense Ammo" sticky in the ammunition forum.


...

this is where yaw dependence comes into play...







 

Yeah, I was thinking I should do that.  Sorry about that.....  In the link about the 69's, it looks to me like it would be viable round.   Sufficient penetration and expansion.....  

There are quite a few loads on that list that should work with a 1/9.....  Anybody know if the 50 grain TSX does???  

Also, if we were wanting to make sure we can go through vests, is that the same thing as "barrier penetration"?  I wasn't clear about that.  I saw the Test that showed the 77 grain nosler in MK262 doing very well against level IIIa armor, but that was all I saw about armor specifically.  Unless that's what meant by "barrier" penetration with all the bonded rounds and such.  I assumed that meant glass and other materials like that.

Absolutely not. "Barrier blind" does not equal "armor piercing". That said, any load from a 223/5.56 or any other rifle caliber will sail right through soft body armor.

OK.  That helps.  I'm assuming there is armor that is designed for rifles though.  I think that's what it said in the ammo thing and I thought our soldiers/ marines wear them....

Just figured out how to reply to a quote.  I didn't 'choose' it so much as it was ';available' when I bought it.  It was within my price range, I'd heard good things from the LGS about Core 15, so I bought it. Not disappointed so far, but I have yet to test for accuracy (rains a lot here).

Lots of great info here, but most of it is over my head.  I feel like I dropped in on a seminar in nuclear physics.  There was nowhere NEAR this kind of specialization in ballistics when I started shooting 40 years ago.  Back then, it was weight, bullet designstyle, and magazine capacity.

It definitely will.













....

1:7 barrels are affordable, available, and easy to install

Screen captured from Blackhills website their ballistics gel test of their loading of the 5.56 Barnes 62 grain TSX from 20" barrel.  Looks pretty violent to me.  Consistent with my field experience on whitetail.  I don't think the 77 OTM will stabilize in 1:9, anyway.

The Israelis sure do know how to get it done! When you're a yacht, floating in a sea of diarrhea, you best know how to disinfect all the disease...

Thank you.I might have to pick up some of these.....  It'll put some zing on it at 50 grains.......  Or maybe the 62's, back to the list I go....

I still have quite a few 68's and half a box of the 69's left in my stash though.

LOL.  Yes.  From the get go....

Check out penetration from this full size captured image of the Blackhills load for 62 grain TSX.  18" and a 45 caliber expanded bullet virtually intact, sharp edged petals.  It mames quite an exit wound.  On deer, we purposefully aim for the shoulder, break it, get a wound channel like in the gel, and have the 45 ACP sized exit hole.  I've not recovered a bullet yet.  Deer just drop, right there at any shot up to 200 yards.  Beyond that, you need more gun, though for hunting.  Ok to maim people, but not deer!  Oddly approptiate ethics, if you take the bad guy out of the fight.

FWIW, my handloaded 62 TSX shoot right at 1 MOA, just a tiny bit over, out of 1:9.

So I'm wondering if the 62's will work in a 1/9, or if they are too long.....

OK, that's weird, the 62's aren't on the approved list.  But federal loads a 55 grain TSX??  Hmmmm....

I am shooting right at one MOA, about 1.1" at 100 yards with the 62 TSX bullets from 1:9 16" carbine nitride barrel.  

I've loaded 53 and 55 TSX.  They shoot fine, but not tighter.  The 62s performance is above,  shoot the best groups in my barrel, and have greater BC.  70s, which I tried in 1:9 will not stabilize.  

I've used Barnes TSX  bullets in multiple calibers, especially 6mm, 7mm and 30 cal bolt guns for decades with great success on big game.  Also in 9mm and .40 handguns.  I load bullets from other companies, but prefer the Barnes all copper for HD and hunting of all but varmints..

The 1:9 is good compromise twist if you don't go toward heavy projos.  I started with 1:12s in the early 80s, mid 90s got a 1:9 then found out it won't stabilze Mk262 that I won at the All Army Matches.  Most of my guns now have 1:7s.  I'm experimenting when I can with different twist as I've got three Green Mountain barrels with 1:14, 1:6 and 1:5.  1:14 I built into a varmint rifle but still need to try those faster twist with 77-90 gr projos.

I don't worry about bad guys with armor as I can not control that variable.  M995 AP is not available widely even in the military.  Whatever load I'm using I'll go back to my failure drills.  5.56mm is simple to get double taps on target super fast and assest the target.  If it still standing shoot again in either head or lower pelvic region.

Edited to add if you want to use a .22LR conversion kit the slower the twist the better for accuracy.  The .22LR uses a 1:16 twist.  I used to get good results with my M261 conversion kit and 1:12 twist.


CD