[ARCHIVED THREAD] - M855 vs. M193 (Page 2 of 2)
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Every T.O. or T.M. will tell you ithat a 14.5 to 16in barrel is only accurate at 500yds for a point target. . You might want to re-read those TMs.  It's 500 METERS (roughly 550 yards), and that applies to worse case M4s using M855. Use better ammo and have a decent rifle and it's no problem to go well beyond that with 5.56 should the need arise (though honestly I don't see such a need poping up).One of my shift partners was in the Marine Corps and went through the designated marksman school. He said 2nd round hits on man size targets at 800 meters was doable with his rifle and an ACOG. I never asked him the specs on the rifle but I assume it was an 18". That is pretty impressive but it isn't possible because of some inherent capability of the 5.56 cartridge. It is possible with lots of skill and an accurate weapon, and good ammo. |
|
Quoted:
"Working" and being "as good as" are not the same. Yes they will work, that doesn't mean their terminal performance is impressive.
In the real world, more people have been killed by the 7.62X39 than any other caliber.  I've hears the same thing said about .30-06, 8mm, .22LR, 9mm etc.
Besides # of killed doesn't tell the story. How many were hit and survived (looking at the results of the battle in Mogidishu and even the CA Schoolyard shootings doesn't exactly portray the 7.62x39 as a particularly desirable caliber). Yes, I am well aware of what ergonomic means. I have a M.A. in Physics as a matter of fact.
No offense, I work in a well-known Physics Lab with a bunch of Physicists and'Ergonimics' isn't a field of study there. On the other hand, my wife of 20 years is an OT with 25 years of experience who does deal with 'ergonomics' as part of her job disagrees with your assesment. If something is easier to do you are more likely to do it. If you do it more, then it is more useful. And if you willingly do something more often you have a greater chance of liking it. If you like doing it you will be more comfortable doing it. The two go hand in hand. That is a circular argument.
Let's use the proper definition of the term shall we? Ergonomics (or human factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance.
What might be a nice length of pull for John who is 5'6", might not be ergonomic for a guy who is 6'3".
That part is true, length of stock will effect the fit. And guess which of the two systems allows their system to change the length of the stock? Telestock FTW! When the automotive industry designs interiors, they base it off of what is ergonomic to the average american, not everyone. If ergonomics was a scientific fact, it would fit everyone. Some things are fit dependant - like distance to steering wheel and height chair. However that does not apply to controls. If you need to user your entire hand and to do a task that a flick of your thumb can accomplish with a tenth of the energy; it's not a matter of choice as to which is more ergonomic. |
| 7.62 short gets the suppressive fire roles, 223 gets the point target roles. While we're at it, why don't we say what we need this ammo for? If I need my rifle in a shtf situation, I need 1 more person minimum and wouldn't feel very comfortable with less than 18. However, those people have families and we start into logistics, at which point the caliber or type of ammo doesn't matter as long as you have enough of it. If its "homefront in real life", I want a beltfed; I don't really care what kind. |
|
Personally, I stock whatever is cheap and shoots reliably in my guns.
The way I see it, in a SHTF scenario, at some point law and order will return. In that case, it'll be awfully hard to justify plugging someone at 300m. In a TEOTWAWKI, it is also unlikely that I'll be shooting at those distances unless I was very hungry and shooting game. The last thing I want to do in this scenario is draw attention to myself or my position and would prefer to not get in a shootout since any wound could be fatal. In a TEOTWAWKI scenario, the longest distance is maybe 400m, but with the buildings on the property, that distance really drops down to about 200m. At that distance, even a 7.62x39 is effective. |
|
For anyone reading through this thread wondering, "Wait, where is all this data coming from? M193 will fragment at longer ranges than M855? Huh?", here are three excerpts from ARFcom's excellent Ammo Oracle:
Q. At what range will M193 fragment? How about M855? Assuming true M193 or M855 ammo, velocity is the key. Velocity is dependent on barrel length and environmental conditions. As barrel length increases, the bullet is propelled faster by the expanding gasses in the barrel, imparting more velocity on the bullet, resulting in a longer range before a fired bullet drops below 2700 fps. A shorter barrel imparts less velocity, and therefore the bullet has less range. Temperature, altitude and humidity are other factors. As temperature or altitude increases, air becomes less dense and bullets travel faster. Contrary to common conceptions, as humidity increases air also becomes less dense and helps bullets retain velocity. It is important, then, to keep in mind that any statistics given can only be approximate and can be affected by a wide range of factors. But as a baseline, these numbers are what you could expect for 75° F, 25% humidity, at sea level, from various barrel lengths: 
As you can see, barrel length and ammo selection make a major impact on fragmentation range. 
Wound profile of M193. 
Wound profile of M855. Note that fragmentation isn't an all-or-nothing event and occurs to varying degrees depending on velocity at the point of impact: 
M193 rounds after close encounters with ballistic gelatin at various velocities. (Fackler) |
|
If money is really no object, then I'd stpock this!
Otherwise, it is M855. I've seen enough penetration tests and shot at some metal objects myself to convince me that it is a good round. It does not have the terminal performance of the 193, but it penetrates better and is a bit more flexible out of different barrel lengths. My Saiga's all shoot them very good. Most humans seek cover when being shot at. The most readily available cover in the US, are stick built structures and metal skinned vehicles. M855 does a fine job of going through both of those. 193, less so. Shot placement trumps bullet performance in my opinion. M855 isn't the best, but it is what I can afford at this time and it does fit into my version of shtf scenario. I don't anticipate fighting emaciated Africans or Arabs in Africa or the Middle East...if that was the case, I'd have an AK in 7.62x39...my shtf scenario will be in the US, so I plan around that. 2 Rounds COM with M855 will do the job...if the enemy is close enough that immediate incapacitation is a concern, then he is close enough for m855 to have decent terminal effects. If he is far enough where I don't have to worry about immediate incapacitation, then terminal effect doesn't matter as much and in most cases, I have the opportunity to evade rather than fight. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: If you're going to be penalized by lower velocities with a shorter barrel - it's much better to shoot a heavier bullet so your projectiles at least have some MASS to transfer more energy into your target. If the barrel cannot attain the necessary velocities to perform the way its terminal ballistics were designed - it's better to fire a heavier bullet that will at least retain sufficient mass & velocity to do some damage at longer distances! The data shows that the M855 is more handicapped with regard to terminal performance than the M193 in short barrels. It also shows that M855 is more dependant on fleet yaw variation, which the shooter has no control over. M855 coupled with the 14.5" M4's is the reason 5.56 has a bad reputation for stopping power. Once you have reached a distance where velocity drops to the point where neither bullet will fragment then I suppose M855 would hold an advantage but M193 will have the advantage up to that point. Since most rifle engagements are inside that envelope M193 just seems like a better option if you are limited to millitary surplus ammo. I agree with you on choosing 7.62x39 over 5.45x39 for the reasons given and that 7.62x39 has much more potential to be a good performer with the right bullets. Wow... We are fully in agreement on both 7.62x39mm, and 5.56x45mm!  As you mentioned, the M855 is more handicapped when discussing terminal performance relative to soft-tissues. I choose it specifically because my 14.5" rifle is equipped with a US Optics SN-4S 1-4x optic with custom-tuned reticle, hand-made specifically for my rifle and handloads firing 62 grain bullets at a specific velocity (equal to that of T3 Bonded Core), and the reticle BDC is accurate out to 600 yards. Out to 400 yards or so, the velocities of the M855 put it at a disadvantage when firing against soft-tissue targets, but beyond that, the Ss109 bullets have a slight advantage. WITHIN that range though, SS109 bullets have a penetration advantage over basic lead-core M193 when firing against steel targets (cars doors, quarter panels, glass, etc.). My PRIMARY go-to ammunition for a bump in the night is Mark 318 Mod0 SOST rounds, but I only have about 120 rounds of it available. My SECONDARY go-to ammunition for dealing with serious threats, and for deer hunting is the 62 grain Federal LawEnforcement T3 Bonded Core Tactical. I figured if it was designed to humanely put down a human quickly and effectively - even after penetration through various barrier materials - that it would be able to humanely put down a deer just fine (it does a damn fine job of that). My TERTIARY go-to ammunition are my SS109 handloads, with some pretty hot pressures and velocities. I can load this ammo for $0.24 a round, and get very adequate accuracy from my 1:7 twist sabre defense barrel (about 1.5 MOA). This is what I handload and store up in bulk due to the low cost, and moderate performance. Everything else is usually 55 grain, either factory or handloads because somebody gave me a bag of 55gn bullets. It's cheap ammo, cheap to shoot, and the only major down-side I see to this is decreased long-range capability, and it's actually LESS accurate in my barrel than 62 grainers, only giving me about 2 MOA groups. I also do keep about 500rds of 69grain Sierra MatchKing handloads all ready to go for longer-range shots out beyond 500 yards, but I've never had the chance to shoot them that far yet. I HAVE shot my SS109 handloads out to 500 yards though, and hits are not that difficult on 18" square steel plate. As you mentioned about the 7.62x39mm, I agree in full. It has great potential with the right bullets, but it really is limited to about 500 yards at most. Most factory loaded ammo cannot shoot very accurately even out to 400 yards, but it can get hits on steel at 400 with practice. I must admit, the Federal T3 Bonded Core Tactical round does an awesome job on hunting large game! I beat a 40 year standing record by shooting a white tail that dressed out to 233 pounds after being gutted. Rack scored 158, almost 159 too. Technically a 12 pointer, but the side points actually lowered the score a little. Dropped the buck from 85 yards with one shot through the spine/neck. I practiced with 300 rounds ~2 weeks before opener to make damn sure I knew where the round would PRECISELY strike at various distances, and it sure pay off! Bullet Selection and Shot Placement (which requires practice) are key when you intend to humanely kill with your weapons.   Technically I practiced with 280rds of my SS109 loads which have a nearly identical velocity & weight, then 20rds of actual T3 bonded ammo to make last-minute zero adjustment to the actual load I'd use on the hunt... Worked beautifully. One shot, cleanly through the spine - surgically disintegrated the spine, did a **LOT** of internal damage to the neck, and continued to zip out the other side of the neck. Deer just dropped instantly, no running, no tracking a blood trail, it dropped, its hind-leg twitched, and that was it. I've never seen such instantaneous & humane death. I can tell you I truly DID piss off a **LOT** of hunters when they saw the 'Damn Military Assault Rifle' I used to drop that buck! 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you're going to be penalized by lower velocities with a shorter barrel - it's much better to shoot a heavier bullet so your projectiles at least have some MASS to transfer more energy into your target. If the barrel cannot attain the necessary velocities to perform the way its terminal ballistics were designed - it's better to fire a heavier bullet that will at least retain sufficient mass & velocity to do some damage at longer distances! The data shows that the M855 is more handicapped with regard to terminal performance than the M193 in short barrels. It also shows that M855 is more dependant on fleet yaw variation, which the shooter has no control over. M855 coupled with the 14.5" M4's is the reason 5.56 has a bad reputation for stopping power. Once you have reached a distance where velocity drops to the point where neither bullet will fragment then I suppose M855 would hold an advantage but M193 will have the advantage up to that point. Since most rifle engagements are inside that envelope M193 just seems like a better option if you are limited to millitary surplus ammo. I agree with you on choosing 7.62x39 over 5.45x39 for the reasons given and that 7.62x39 has much more potential to be a good performer with the right bullets. Wow... We are fully in agreement on both 7.62x39mm, and 5.56x45mm!
As you mentioned, the M855 is more handicapped when discussing terminal performance relative to soft-tissues. I choose it specifically because my 14.5" rifle is equipped with a US Optics SN-4S 1-4x optic with custom-tuned reticle, hand-made specifically for my rifle and handloads firing 62 grain bullets at a specific velocity (equal to that of T3 Bonded Core), and the reticle BDC is accurate out to 600 yards. Out to 400 yards or so, the velocities of the M855 put it at a disadvantage when firing against soft-tissue targets, but beyond that, the Ss109 bullets have a slight advantage. WITHIN that range though, SS109 bullets have a penetration advantage over basic lead-core M193 when firing against steel targets (cars doors, quarter panels, glass, etc.). My PRIMARY go-to ammunition for a bump in the night is Mark 318 Mod0 SOST rounds, but I only have about 120 rounds of it available. My SECONDARY go-to ammunition for dealing with serious threats, and for deer hunting is the 62 grain Federal LawEnforcement T3 Bonded Core Tactical. I figured if it was designed to humanely put down a human quickly and effectively - even after penetration through various barrier materials - that it would be able to humanely put down a deer just fine (it does a damn fine job of that). My TERTIARY go-to ammunition are my SS109 handloads, with some pretty hot pressures and velocities. I can load this ammo for $0.24 a round, and get very adequate accuracy from my 1:7 twist sabre defense barrel (about 1.5 MOA). This is what I handload and store up in bulk due to the low cost, and moderate performance. Everything else is usually 55 grain, either factory or handloads because somebody gave me a bag of 55gn bullets. It's cheap ammo, cheap to shoot, and the only major down-side I see to this is decreased long-range capability, and it's actually LESS accurate in my barrel than 62 grainers, only giving me about 2 MOA groups. I also do keep about 500rds of 69grain Sierra MatchKing handloads all ready to go for longer-range shots out beyond 500 yards, but I've never had the chance to shoot them that far yet. I HAVE shot my SS109 handloads out to 500 yards though, and hits are not that difficult on 18" square steel plate. As you mentioned about the 7.62x39mm, I agree in full. It has great potential with the right bullets, but it really is limited to about 500 yards at most. Most factory loaded ammo cannot shoot very accurately even out to 400 yards, but it can get hits on steel at 400 with practice. I must admit, the Federal T3 Bonded Core Tactical round does an awesome job on hunting large game! I beat a 40 year standing record by shooting a white tail that dressed out to 233 pounds after being gutted. Rack scored 158, almost 159 too. Technically a 12 pointer, but the side points actually lowered the score a little. Dropped the buck from 85 yards with one shot through the spine/neck. I practiced with 300 rounds ~2 weeks before opener to make damn sure I knew where the round would PRECISELY strike at various distances, and it sure pay off! Bullet Selection and Shot Placement (which requires practice) are key when you intend to humanely kill with your weapons. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v401/bannie/DeerHunting/IMG00020.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v401/bannie/DeerHunting/DSCN0970.jpg Technically I practiced with 280rds of my SS109 loads which have a nearly identical velocity & weight, then 20rds of actual T3 bonded ammo to make last-minute zero adjustment to the actual load I'd use on the hunt... Worked beautifully. One shot, cleanly through the spine - surgically disintegrated the spine, did a **LOT** of internal damage to the neck, and continued to zip out the other side of the neck. Deer just dropped instantly, no running, no tracking a blood trail, it dropped, its hind-leg twitched, and that was it. I've never seen such instantaneous & humane death. I can tell you I truly DID piss off a **LOT** of hunters when they saw the 'Damn Military Assault Rifle' I used to drop that buck! It does sound like we are on the same page. The Federal bonded ammo is excellent performing ammo and will work well for medium game and people and will outperform any military ammo with regard to terminal performance, including the Mk318. Though the Mk 318 is very good compared to M855 or M193. Nice buck! |
|
Quoted:
greentip does not perform for me as well as 193. They both fail to achieve the ballistics of Barnes TSX. Very true but not really a fair comparison. I can get M193 for .30 a round but Barnes are .50 per bullet and over 1.00 a round. I love Barnes, but they are expensive to stock deep. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you're going to be penalized by lower velocities with a shorter barrel - it's much better to shoot a heavier bullet so your projectiles at least have some MASS to transfer more energy into your target. If the barrel cannot attain the necessary velocities to perform the way its terminal ballistics were designed - it's better to fire a heavier bullet that will at least retain sufficient mass & velocity to do some damage at longer distances! The data shows that the M855 is more handicapped with regard to terminal performance than the M193 in short barrels. It also shows that M855 is more dependant on fleet yaw variation, which the shooter has no control over. M855 coupled with the 14.5" M4's is the reason 5.56 has a bad reputation for stopping power. Once you have reached a distance where velocity drops to the point where neither bullet will fragment then I suppose M855 would hold an advantage but M193 will have the advantage up to that point. Since most rifle engagements are inside that envelope M193 just seems like a better option if you are limited to millitary surplus ammo. I agree with you on choosing 7.62x39 over 5.45x39 for the reasons given and that 7.62x39 has much more potential to be a good performer with the right bullets. Wow... We are fully in agreement on both 7.62x39mm, and 5.56x45mm!
As you mentioned, the M855 is more handicapped when discussing terminal performance relative to soft-tissues. I choose it specifically because my 14.5" rifle is equipped with a US Optics SN-4S 1-4x optic with custom-tuned reticle, hand-made specifically for my rifle and handloads firing 62 grain bullets at a specific velocity (equal to that of T3 Bonded Core), and the reticle BDC is accurate out to 600 yards. Out to 400 yards or so, the velocities of the M855 put it at a disadvantage when firing against soft-tissue targets, but beyond that, the Ss109 bullets have a slight advantage. WITHIN that range though, SS109 bullets have a penetration advantage over basic lead-core M193 when firing against steel targets (cars doors, quarter panels, glass, etc.). My PRIMARY go-to ammunition for a bump in the night is Mark 318 Mod0 SOST rounds, but I only have about 120 rounds of it available. My SECONDARY go-to ammunition for dealing with serious threats, and for deer hunting is the 62 grain Federal LawEnforcement T3 Bonded Core Tactical. I figured if it was designed to humanely put down a human quickly and effectively - even after penetration through various barrier materials - that it would be able to humanely put down a deer just fine (it does a damn fine job of that). My TERTIARY go-to ammunition are my SS109 handloads, with some pretty hot pressures and velocities. I can load this ammo for $0.24 a round, and get very adequate accuracy from my 1:7 twist sabre defense barrel (about 1.5 MOA). This is what I handload and store up in bulk due to the low cost, and moderate performance. Everything else is usually 55 grain, either factory or handloads because somebody gave me a bag of 55gn bullets. It's cheap ammo, cheap to shoot, and the only major down-side I see to this is decreased long-range capability, and it's actually LESS accurate in my barrel than 62 grainers, only giving me about 2 MOA groups. I also do keep about 500rds of 69grain Sierra MatchKing handloads all ready to go for longer-range shots out beyond 500 yards, but I've never had the chance to shoot them that far yet. I HAVE shot my SS109 handloads out to 500 yards though, and hits are not that difficult on 18" square steel plate. As you mentioned about the 7.62x39mm, I agree in full. It has great potential with the right bullets, but it really is limited to about 500 yards at most. Most factory loaded ammo cannot shoot very accurately even out to 400 yards, but it can get hits on steel at 400 with practice. I must admit, the Federal T3 Bonded Core Tactical round does an awesome job on hunting large game! I beat a 40 year standing record by shooting a white tail that dressed out to 233 pounds after being gutted. Rack scored 158, almost 159 too. Technically a 12 pointer, but the side points actually lowered the score a little. Dropped the buck from 85 yards with one shot through the spine/neck. I practiced with 300 rounds ~2 weeks before opener to make damn sure I knew where the round would PRECISELY strike at various distances, and it sure pay off! Bullet Selection and Shot Placement (which requires practice) are key when you intend to humanely kill with your weapons. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v401/bannie/DeerHunting/IMG00020.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v401/bannie/DeerHunting/DSCN0970.jpg Technically I practiced with 280rds of my SS109 loads which have a nearly identical velocity & weight, then 20rds of actual T3 bonded ammo to make last-minute zero adjustment to the actual load I'd use on the hunt... Worked beautifully. One shot, cleanly through the spine - surgically disintegrated the spine, did a **LOT** of internal damage to the neck, and continued to zip out the other side of the neck. Deer just dropped instantly, no running, no tracking a blood trail, it dropped, its hind-leg twitched, and that was it. I've never seen such instantaneous & humane death. I can tell you I truly DID piss off a **LOT** of hunters when they saw the 'Damn Military Assault Rifle' I used to drop that buck! Not to be a debbie downer, but if you can place a round in the spine, it doesn't matter what round it is. M193 and M855 kill the exact same way on a CNS hit. I don't hunt with them here because we aren't allowed FMJ ammo. Although if given the chance I would use something better. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Both are poor performers with military ball ammo and if you buy premium ammo for them they are just as expensive to feed as an AR which has better ergonomics, so they will always be behind 5.56 in my SHTF use list. I have several AK's and SKS's and the ammo and mags to feed them, but they will always take 2nd chair
Millions around the world would disagree. The 5.45 and 7.62X39 have been effective man stoppers for many years. They were not designed to fire "premium ammo". They were designed to be reliable while using cheap steel cased cartridges. As far as better ergonomic's, thats opinioned based as many find that it does not. The poor performance of both with military ammo is well documented. There is an ecellent graphic here: Best Choices for Self Defense Since they neither fragment or expand they are among the worst performers except for penetration. The 7.62x39 has tremendous potential, provided the ranges are modest, with the right projectiles but we're talking about military surplus ammo. Just because they have been used to kill lots of people doesn't make them ideal or even good choices when compared to other options. As for the AR being more ergonomic, that is an opinion. I own and shoot all 3 and it is no contest in my opinion but others may disagree. Here's the graphic I was talking about: 
|
|
Quoted: Not to be a debbie downer, but if you can place a round in the spine, it doesn't matter what round it is. M193 and M855 kill the exact same way on a CNS hit. I don't hunt with them here because we aren't allowed FMJ ammo. Although if given the chance I would use something better. I'm sure that, IF an M193 or M855 would've stayed on course without deflecting before or tumbling after impact, they would've been able to kill the exact same way on a CNS Hit. I chose the T3 Bonded Core because it was specifically designed to have virtually nil deflection - even after penetrating a windshield or door at various angles, and still continuing to hold together and impact the intended target. Minimal deflection due to flesh/bone and minimal 'tumbling' effect and virtually nil fragmentation or loss of mass were strong reasons why I chose that particular bullet. If you look at the first picture, follow the muzzle of the AR-15 up over my shoulder, and about 85 yards back, through the trees, and about 16 feet up is where the stand was located (but cannot be seen through the brush). I was firing through brush & trees, and I didn't want some sticks throwing my shot off target. I needed a precise, clean shot to confidently hit a target that's about 2.5 inches wide, and make a clean 1-shot kill. Not only would it have been illegal to use an FMJ bullet for the hunt, but I honestly wouldn't have confidence that M193 or M855 would've been able to accurately remain on target through those trees & brush. A CNS shot from just about any bullet can kill with arguably equal effectiveness. The use of superior performing bullets is what ensures that making the CNS shot is even possible. I wouldn't have trusted any bullet other than T3 to that kind of shot. Not even SOST rounds. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not to be a debbie downer, but if you can place a round in the spine, it doesn't matter what round it is. M193 and M855 kill the exact same way on a CNS hit. I don't hunt with them here because we aren't allowed FMJ ammo. Although if given the chance I would use something better. I'm sure that, IF an M193 or M855 would've stayed on course without deflecting before or tumbling after impact, they would've been able to kill the exact same way on a CNS Hit. I chose the T3 Bonded Core because it was specifically designed to have virtually nil deflection - even after penetrating a windshield or door at various angles, and still continuing to hold together and impact the intended target. Minimal deflection due to flesh/bone and minimal 'tumbling' effect and virtually nil fragmentation or loss of mass were strong reasons why I chose that particular bullet. If you look at the first picture, follow the muzzle of the AR-15 up over my shoulder, and about 85 yards back, through the trees, and about 16 feet up is where the stand was located (but cannot be seen through the brush). I was firing through brush & trees, and I didn't want some sticks throwing my shot off target. I needed a precise, clean shot to confidently hit a target that's about 2.5 inches wide, and make a clean 1-shot kill. Not only would it have been illegal to use an FMJ bullet for the hunt, but I honestly wouldn't have confidence that M193 or M855 would've been able to accurately remain on target through those trees & brush. A CNS shot from just about any bullet can kill with arguably equal effectiveness. The use of superior performing bullets is what ensures that making the CNS shot is even possible. I wouldn't have trusted any bullet other than T3 to that kind of shot. Not even SOST rounds. OK, I copy. I do agree if it is available, higher quality ammo is better, but IMHO, if I have time to get to my rifle in a SHTF situation, Quantity has a quality all its own. And I'm bringing my friends with rifles too.
|
|
Quoted:
A few points to consider is that M193 will penetrate steel body armor and M855 will not. M855 will penetrate dyneema composite body armor and M193 will not. Neither will penetrate ceramic or hybrid plates. Neither performs well through windshield glass. where can i find this info. Years ago I fired several shots of m193 and m855 at 1/2 steel plate at about 75 yards. (not body armor plate but a steel cover from a gas station) The 193 made pea sized craters and the 855 made the same pea sized craters but with small holes all the way through. Still kicking myself for not keeping the plate. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
A few points to consider is that M193 will penetrate steel body armor and M855 will not. M855 will penetrate dyneema composite body armor and M193 will not. Neither will penetrate ceramic or hybrid plates. Neither performs well through windshield glass. where can i find this info. Years ago I fired several shots of m193 and m855 at 1/2 steel plate at about 75 yards. (not body armor plate but a steel cover from a gas station) The 193 made pea sized craters and the 855 made the same pea sized craters but with small holes all the way through. Still kicking myself for not keeping the plate. The 1/2" mild steel is quite a bit different than the hardened AR500 steel used for rifle plates. I originally learned about it from Dr Roberts' testing of different rifle rated body armor with multiple different types of ammo. The results are available on M4carbine, which I don't think I'm allowed to link here. If you look at the ratings for Armored Mobility's different plates (the TACST is a steel plate) you'll see they show the same thing. The steel plate stops M855 but not M193 or the LeMas Urban Warfare round (I believe it is a 40gr V-Max of all things). It seems to be more related to velocity than to bullet weight or construction. I don't know for sure, but I suspect the steel would stop M193 at extended distance or if it was fired from a shorter barrel, resulting in lower velocity. I don't recall where I read it, but something about the velocity of the round generating so much heat from friction that it actually melts the steel. That is just from recollection so don't hold me to that one. Here is a link to AMI's TACST: Amored Mobility Also note that their SAPI3 plates will stop both M193 and the LeMas round but not M855. I believe, but I'm not 100%, that the SAPI3 plate is Dyneema (polymer). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A few points to consider is that M193 will penetrate steel body armor and M855 will not. M855 will penetrate dyneema composite body armor and M193 will not. Neither will penetrate ceramic or hybrid plates. Neither performs well through windshield glass. where can i find this info. Years ago I fired several shots of m193 and m855 at 1/2 steel plate at about 75 yards. (not body armor plate but a steel cover from a gas station) The 193 made pea sized craters and the 855 made the same pea sized craters but with small holes all the way through. Still kicking myself for not keeping the plate. The 1/2" mild steel is quite a bit different than the hardened AR500 steel used for rifle plates. I originally learned about it from Dr Roberts' testing of different rifle rated body armor with multiple different types of ammo. The results are available on M4carbine, which I don't think I'm allowed to link here. If you look at the ratings for Armored Mobility's different plates (the TACST is a steel plate) you'll see they show the same thing. The steel plate stops M855 but not M193 or the LeMas Urban Warfare round (I believe it is a 40gr V-Max of all things). It seems to be more related to velocity than to bullet weight or construction. I don't know for sure, but I suspect the steel would stop M193 at extended distance or if it was fired from a shorter barrel, resulting in lower velocity. I don't recall where I read it, but something about the velocity of the round generating so much heat from friction that it actually melts the steel. That is just from recollection so don't hold me to that one. Here is a link to AMI's TACST: Amored Mobility Also note that their SAPI3 plates will stop both M193 and the LeMas round but not M855. I believe, but I'm not 100%, that the SAPI3 plate is Dyneema (polymer). 10-4 |
|
My results were always opposite of what everyone claims with M855 and M193.
M855 leaves twice as deep of a crater on my AR500 plate, again leaves twice as deep of a crater on the ductile Iron I have (i forget the specific number), and again M855 penetrates deeper on softer steel too. |