Armory Sponsor
Joined:
Feb 2024
Posts:
45
EE: 0% (0)
OR, USA
Posted: 7/15/2026 5:01:34 PM EDT
|
Almost every discussion I have seen on Australian surplus 7.62x51 ammo in other forums has been positive with regard to accuracy and reliability. The one negative account I found was that some of the older production (83 headstamp, i.e., produced in 1983) rounds had poor accuracy compared to the newer production rounds (e.g., 87, 88, 89, etc.). Has anyone who’s used this ammo notice differences in performance among production years? I know the earlier production is Berdan primed and the newer production is Boxer primed. I don’t reload, so I am really just concerned from a reliability and accuracy standpoint. (Not that I’m expecting superb accuracy from something akin to M80 ball.) |
|
You just reminded me I've got two or three .50 caliber ammo cans of that stuff somewhere. I'd forgotten about it. Probably forget again before I run across it. Seems like it's with a few .50 caliber cans of .45 acp. |
How you live your life is important. Just be sure the memory of how you died doesn't overshadow the tales of how you lived your life.
| IIRC, the blister packs were the newer, more consistent ammo than the ones on stripper clips in ww2 bandos. |
Seriously, a tractor dealer from Possum Trot, KY has to explain this to you, a lawyer? - JPL
Win if you can, lose if you must, but always look good for the crowd.
"A clip of ammunition, for my little Armalite."
Win if you can, lose if you must, but always look good for the crowd.
"A clip of ammunition, for my little Armalite."
Joined:
Feb 2024
Posts:
46
EE: 0% (0)
OR, USA
|
Originally Posted By M1A4ME: You just reminded me I've got two or three .50 caliber ammo cans of that stuff somewhere. I'd forgotten about it. Probably forget again before I run across it. Seems like it's with a few .50 caliber cans of .45 acp. You should sell one of the .50 cans to me before you forget about it again 
|
Joined:
Feb 2024
Posts:
47
EE: 0% (0)
OR, USA
|
Originally Posted By Libalah_Timmy: Well that would track, because of course I have the stuff on the stripper clips  Originally Posted By Libalah_Timmy: Originally Posted By MisterPX: IIRC, the blister packs were the newer, more consistent ammo than the ones on stripper clips in ww2 bandos. Well that would track, because of course I have the stuff on the stripper clips Same. It's been sitting on my shelf for twenty years. |
"Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky!" -Alec Guinness as MAJ (acting Colonel) Jock Sinclair, D.S.O., M.M. "Tunes of Glory"
Joined:
Feb 2024
Posts:
48
EE: 0% (0)
OR, USA
|
Originally Posted By EMSflyer: The can and the bando's are marked 7/88. It's consistent and accurate. Runs 100% in all the FALs, .308 AR and various other .308s. Thanks for checking! It’s reassuring to know the bando stuff lives up to the accolades I have heard about the Aussie ammo. Mine’s ‘83 MF marked, so hopefully there’s quality consistency across years. I mean, I suppose I should just go out and test some of it for myself 
|
Joined:
Feb 2024
Posts:
49
EE: 0% (0)
OR, USA
| Ive still got 7K of the stuff. GREAT ammo. Some in original .30 cans, most of it in blister packs inside crates. I don’t recall years of production and I don’t notice any difference in performance. However, I am also NOT a precision rifle shooter. |
Life is short. If you are waiting for “someday”, it’s here!
Joined:
Mar 2022
Posts:
469
EE: 0% (0)
WA, USA
|
When I read the OP I was surprised, as I had stocked up on a considerable amount of the Australian back in the day, and it was the supposedly bad '83 in bandoleers. I hadn't noticed poor accuracy before, but I had mostly shot it out of G3's, FAL's, and the like and didn't have match ammo expectations. So, I decided to give it a try in my most accurate rifle - a Tikka T3x CTR. The Tikka usually shoots ~1/2 moa with my handloads of Hornady 178 gr ELD-M's and Varget powder. I shot three five-shot groups that were 2.1", 1.2", and 1.5" in that order. And to be fair, with my first group I was still getting settled in to the rifle. I guess it's not too bad for 43 year old ammo that I paid 11 cents a round for. ETA: This was at 100 yards. 
|
Joined:
Feb 2024
Posts:
50
EE: 0% (0)
OR, USA
|
Originally Posted By Makarov: Ive still got 7K of the stuff. GREAT ammo. Some in original .30 cans, most of it in blister packs inside crates. I don’t recall years of production and I don’t notice any difference in performance. However, I am also NOT a precision rifle shooter. Nor am I. So while match ammo would be lost on me, plus it’s out of my price range to buy in bulk, I am looking for all the advantages I can get in any surplus ammo, lol. Glad to hear it’s been consistent across different years, thanks for that. |
Joined:
Feb 2024
Posts:
51
EE: 0% (0)
OR, USA
|
Originally Posted By slughunter1: Always shot great in all my battle rifles have not used any in a few years. Got some buried somewhere mostly shoot Port which I find also very good. I’ve heard good things about Port too, would you say it’s on par, or better than the Australian stuff? |
Joined:
Feb 2024
Posts:
52
EE: 0% (0)
OR, USA
|
Originally Posted By Steve961: When I read the OP I was surprised, as I had stocked up on a considerable amount of the Australian back in the day, and it was the supposedly bad '83 in bandoleers. I hadn't noticed poor accuracy before, but I had mostly shot it out of G3's, FAL's, and the like and didn't have match ammo expectations. So, I decided to give it a try in my most accurate rifle - a Tikka T3x CTR. The Tikka usually shoots ~1/2 moa with my handloads of Hornady 178 gr ELD-M's and Varget powder. I shot three five-shot groups that were 2.1", 1.2", and 1.5" in that order. And to be fair, with my first group I was still getting settled in to the rifle. I guess it's not too bad for 43 year old ammo that I paid 11 cents a round for. ETA: This was at 100 yards. https://i.postimg.cc/vTggnKjN/tgt.png Thank you, that’s awesome of you to run that test, is highly informative, and very much appreciated! I’m no expert, but I’d say it looks like pretty good stuff (not to mention good shooting). I think it’s also safe to say that ammo can probably outperform my own shooting abilities, lol. Your findings is good news because the ‘83 stuff is what I have too! Thanks again, great data to have. |
|
Originally Posted By Libalah_Timmy: I’ve heard good things about Port too, would you say it’s on par, or better than the Australian stuff? Originally Posted By Libalah_Timmy: Originally Posted By slughunter1: Always shot great in all my battle rifles have not used any in a few years. Got some buried somewhere mostly shoot Port which I find also very good. I’ve heard good things about Port too, would you say it’s on par, or better than the Australian stuff? The non linked Port is better accuracy wise then the Aussie IMHO. I still have a decent supply of the 5 round blister packs of the aussie stuff. |
Liberals are a curious mix of communism and fascism, they want to destroy you but want to use your own money to do it.
I'm getting down to the last box, the others have all been destroyed...
I'm getting down to the last box, the others have all been destroyed...
Joined:
Feb 2024
Posts:
53
EE: 0% (0)
OR, USA
|
Originally Posted By fxntime: The non linked Port is better accuracy wise then the Aussie IMHO. I still have a decent supply of the 5 round blister packs of the aussie stuff. Interesting! What kind of groups have you gotten with the Port vs Aussie stuff? And how was the Port stuff for reliability? That’s good to know because, from my limited experience, the Port stuff seems to be one of the more readily available varieties. |
Joined:
Feb 2024
Posts:
54
EE: 0% (0)
OR, USA
|
Originally Posted By Libalah_Timmy: Interesting! What kind of groups have you gotten with the Port vs Aussie stuff? And how was the Port stuff for reliability? That’s good to know because, from my limited experience, the Port stuff seems to be one of the more readily available varieties. Originally Posted By Libalah_Timmy: Originally Posted By fxntime: The non linked Port is better accuracy wise then the Aussie IMHO. I still have a decent supply of the 5 round blister packs of the aussie stuff. Interesting! What kind of groups have you gotten with the Port vs Aussie stuff? And how was the Port stuff for reliability? That’s good to know because, from my limited experience, the Port stuff seems to be one of the more readily available varieties. Non linked Port is very accurate for Mil ball ammo. Probably at the top or very near it. Aussie is pretty good but decidedly not as accurate as Port. I sent 8? different countries Mil 7.62x51 to one of the gents that used to post here and non linked Port was #1. The linked MG ammo isn't as accurate. [the old ''box of truth' threads by Painless] |
Liberals are a curious mix of communism and fascism, they want to destroy you but want to use your own money to do it.
I'm getting down to the last box, the others have all been destroyed...
I'm getting down to the last box, the others have all been destroyed...
| I had function issues with bagged Port in a M1A and a Stg58 to the point I gave away a couple battlepacks at a HTF shoot years ago |
Seriously, a tractor dealer from Possum Trot, KY has to explain this to you, a lawyer? - JPL
Win if you can, lose if you must, but always look good for the crowd.
"A clip of ammunition, for my little Armalite."
Win if you can, lose if you must, but always look good for the crowd.
"A clip of ammunition, for my little Armalite."
Joined:
Feb 2024
Posts:
55
EE: 0% (0)
OR, USA
|
It’s interesting you say that. After what fxntime said about the accuracy of Port ammo, I was interested to learn more and looked on other forums. The majority of the accounts were positive and tracked with it having good accuracy, but there was at least one account of Port ammo having major issues. I think the person said it was a batch from ‘79 but can’t be sure. That would be a bummer to have ammo fail on you when you truly needed it. |
Joined:
Mar 2022
Posts:
480
EE: 0% (0)
WA, USA
|
Yes. The 79 stamped stuff is only port I had issues with. Mainly primer issues bought a ton of port when it was cheap like $135.00 per thousand in battle packs. Luck had it I only bought a couple battle packs of 79 even then out of a 20 round box maybe had one or two not fire as I remember. They were $ 20.00 for 140 per battle pack so no big deal. |
|
Originally Posted By Libalah_Timmy: And, not to detail the thread, but while we’re here, how does the German MEN and DAG, Hirtenburger, GGG, etc. stack up? Anything that’s particularly good? I’ve heard South African stuff is very accurate, but have also heard it’s particularly dirty. My experience with everything discussed: Hirtenberger performance varies by year. 1980s Stg.58-marked (on the bag) ammunition performed better for me than 1970s rounds. Top quartile accuracy. MEN and DAG DM111 isn't always the absolute most accurate surplus in a given rifle, but it's always great, usually top quartile if not top 3. My pick of all 7.62x51 surplus. GGG I've found to be wildly overrated. Decent brass but third quartile accuracy. South African always seems to perform right in the middle. Overly celebrated by the 2000s stack deep crowd due to its excellent packaging and the sheer volume it arrived here in, but mediocre performance on target. Unlike all of the above, I've found Australian surplus (MF, AFF, ADI) accuracy performance to be extremely rifle-dependent. A good example was two Australian L1A1s I used to own built from matching kits. Excellent bores in both, neither was notably accurate with anything except that surplus L2A2. That said, I've never seen Australian ammo perform abysmally, just bimodally mediocre or excellent. |
|
Yesterday I shot a little bit more of that 7/88 Aussie stuff and it was printing a 2 inch group at 100 yds. I was dialing in the sights on my Argentine FAL. Someone with younger eyes might have been able to do slightly better. The glasses only help so much. This is by far the most accurate surplus I've shot. |
Armory Sponsor