anyone have info on the jacket thickness of 175 SMK?

Im looking at a similar round but I want to make sure it has a thinner jacket and will fragment.

175SMK?

Fragment?

No.

And no, the 175 Nosler Custom Comp won't either.

At least not in my experience (which is pretty substantial with 175SMK's.)

they do fragment there are jel shots firing through different barriers here.

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/WebData/2010_Federal_223RifleDataBook.pdf

I shot one into water jugs I only recovered small fragments, it penitrated 4 jugs 16in barrel @ 25m

*SIGH*.


Now try seeing if it fragments at ranges longer than your living room.

Considering its a match bullet, which are generally shot at match ranges of at least 100 yards, start there. I think you'll find its very unpredictable, sometimes it fragments, sometimes is acts like a FMJ.

Shooting damn near any non-bonded bullet into water at 2500FPS or faster will generally make it fragment at 25 meters.

If you want to tear something up, use the AMAX bullet, and drive it fast. My loads are showing a BC of .505, the factory says .495.... And its much more likely to fragment, I promise.

i dont reload, hornadys Amax loads wont work in an AR10 because of the soft brass they use.

I am aware that the tests should be done at distances of farther than 25m and i'll get to that. Firing from a 16 has a lower muzzle velocity and simulates a longer shot with longer barrel.

I found this frag ranges and velocity.

M118LR

Mk 17 16"
2475
85 yds (2351 fps) / 2148 ft/lbs

Mk 17 16" Suppressor Attached
2481
90 yds (2342 fps) / 2131 ft/lbs

Mk 17 20"
2559
140 yds (2341 fps) / 2129 ft/lbs

Mk 17 20" Suppressor Attached
2570
140 yds (2351 fps) / 2148 ft/lbs


not great but 5.56 would only be 150 yard frag range out of a 16 with any ammo 75 or 77smk.  It'll stop someone fast at close range.

Sir,

I am jealous of your living room.  

One, where did you get this??



Two, the TAP brass with the nickle coating will work just fine, The regular hornady brass should work as well as the federal, but since they are softer you just have to be vigilant of shavings building up, or you can slow down the action with a heavier buffer.





 

You start running into cost, the nickel plated TAP FPD loads are more expencive than the regular tap. I'd have to run a few hundred just to see if it works.

I would fire off less than 2 mags and have an ejector stuck sometimes. FTE the empty case, the gun is a useless singleshot at that point. I dont trust hornady ammo to run at all in the AR10. If you shoot enough of it you'll see this.

I've already chosen American ballistics M118LR, It has Hard milspec brass with crimped primers. They use their own slightly different bullet than the SMK which has preformed well in water jugs, fragmenting within the first jug reliably, I just need to test at longer distance.

Not totally, maybe from lot to lot. Like i said im using a similar round made by american ballistics not the SMK. This round that is more center of gravity forward may preform better. so far it looks good because of consistant fragmentation in the first milk jug.




First you said it dosent fragment, now you say it does but your experience is substantial... you've completely discredited yourself.

If the federal gel tests werent enough.

thats from http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=713978

I cant track it back to who/where on lightfighter because im not a member.

Thanks

If you read DocGKR's work which is outlined in the ammo FAQ here and on M4 he talks about how inconsistent the 168gr SMK is with regard to terminal performance.  Sometimes it fragments perfectly, sometimes it travels a long way before fragmenting, and sometimes it behaves like a non-fragmenting FMJ.  I don't know that the 175 is exactly the same, but I would expect it to behave similarly.

I agree that it would be better to go with a proven bullet like the AMAX or SGK.  The bullet you speak of as being similar to the SMK doesn't sound like it is well tested so understand that you are venturing into unproven areas.  I've done testing with water jugs too, and it does tell you something, but it is no substitute for exhaustive gel testing.  I prefer to use something proven when it counts.

ETA:  I was wrong, he does say it is both the 168 and the 175 SMK.  Check the ammo FAQ "Best Choices for Self Defense" resource here for the specifics.  In short, "Some of the preferred bullets used by the long-range community are the 168 and 175SMKs. These do not make the best choices for shorter-range shots where instant incapacitation is needed due to the variability in their terminal performance"

I reposted this mike in an effort for you to re-read it. Once again, its unreliable at best. Claim I've "been discredited" all you want, DocGKR has all the lab data to perform what I've seen with real world results.

As far as what I outlined in green, I'm sure I've posted that already. In fact, I'm positive I have...