Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 6/26/2015 4:58:28 PM EDT
From my limited experience, all domestically produced M855 on civilian market is of poor quality. Brass is beat up and accuracy is horrid. All foreign equivalent so far has been great (groups are half the size, ammo looks flawless). Namely, I'm talking American Eagle for domestic (ammo in 20rnd boxes and 120rnd boxes, years 2012, 2013, 2014). For overseas stuff it's Carl Gustaf, IMI, ZQi, and PMC. Which lead me to the idea that domestically-available m855 is just stuff that doesn't pass mil standards but still isn't dangerous to shoot, so they dump that crap on civilians. Whereas the foreign ammo comes out of the same batches as the stuff they sell to military (own and foreign to them). Or maybe I'm crazy. Any input?
Link Posted: 6/26/2015 6:08:12 PM EDT
Thinking crazy... But the 855 from Lake City isn't pretty, but shoots good for me. I like PMC both 193 and 855 too..
Link Posted: 6/26/2015 8:15:32 PM EDT
They arent rejects. Its easier for lake city to keep the m855 line running and just sell the same shit to us.
Link Posted: 6/26/2015 9:40:51 PM EDT
fwiw, Carl Gustav is not an ss109 type round
Link Posted: 6/27/2015 1:01:28 PM EDT
FWIW and others will chime in:

-The argument that the Domestic M855 is rejected military m855 is an old internet deal........ so yes or no- take your pick.

-I've found NONE of the M855 particularly accurate- domestic or foreign.

-I REALLY hate saying the word "mil-spec" in ANY notes BUT the US mil-spec is to leave the annealing coloring on the cases alone (so you can see it was done).  So LC etc don't do a final tumbling of the ammunition to remove it.  That is why it looks bad.  The fact other companies (like some foreign companies) DO do that means nothing to me.  Except if you want to get into a "mil-spec" argument- they aren't following the specifications and leaving the coloring as is.
Link Posted: 6/27/2015 1:09:13 PM EDT
Cleaned and tumbled brass may not meet US Spec. If you look at Molon's testing, the accuracy specs are very similar amongst the 855 clones.
Link Posted: 6/27/2015 5:46:58 PM EDT
Issue ammunition is never shiny, especially rifle ammunition.  All the XM855 I've ever seen has looked exactly like issue ammunition.  As for accuracy, accuracy standards for M855 are "close" at best; it is not anything like MOA ammunition.  

This "only fair" accuracy potential is because the SS109-type bullet used in M855 is a complex structure and it's hard to keep the jacket, the steel insert and the lead core as "precise" as a simple jacket with lead core bullet design.  Bullets designed for accuracy, such as "open tip match" bullets, are made with a "front loaded" jacket, which makes the bullet's base much more consistent than FMJ-type (including SS109) bullets that are "back loaded."  

All in all, XM855 should work about as well as issued, GI M855.  It's the very definition of "bulk" ammunition, but it's made at a well run, modern and efficient ammunition plant, so it'll be pretty darn consistent, even if that consistency includes about 4 MOA (by some descriptions) minimum accuracy standards.
Link Posted: 6/27/2015 6:01:55 PM EDT
It is only required to have a standard deviation of 7/8" at 100 yards.  So, at 100 yards 99% of the bullet holes have to be within a 5.4 inch circle.

That's not really match stuff....
Link Posted: 6/27/2015 7:06:57 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Issue ammunition is never shiny, especially rifle ammunition.  All the XM855 I've ever seen has looked exactly like issue ammunition.  As for accuracy, accuracy standards for M855 are "close" at best; it is not anything like MOA ammunition.  

This "only fair" accuracy potential is because the SS109-type bullet used in M855 is a complex structure and it's hard to keep the jacket, the steel insert and the lead core as "precise" as a simple jacket with lead core bullet design.  Bullets designed for accuracy, such as "open tip match" bullets, are made with a "front loaded" jacket, which makes the bullet's base much more consistent than FMJ-type (including SS109) bullets that are "back loaded."  

All in all, XM855 should work about as well as issued, GI M855.  It's the very definition of "bulk" ammunition, but it's made at a well run, modern and efficient ammunition plant, so it'll be pretty darn consistent, even if that consistency includes about 4 MOA (by some descriptions) minimum accuracy standards.
View Quote




This is the answer you seek OP.
Link Posted: 6/27/2015 11:40:41 PM EDT

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


It is only required to have a standard deviation of 7/8" at 100 yards.  So, at 100 yards 99% of the bullet holes have to be within a 5.4 inch circle.



That's not really match stuff....
View Quote


the only accuracy specs i've been able to find (from MIL-C-63989C) state:



3.11 Accuracy. Both average vertical standard deviation and

the average horizontal standard deviation shall be no greater than

6.8 inches at 600 yards, or alternatively, no greater than 1.8

inches at 200 yards using an indoor range.



 
Link Posted: 6/28/2015 10:03:07 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

the only accuracy specs i've been able to find (from MIL-C-63989C) state:

3.11 Accuracy. Both average vertical standard deviation and
the average horizontal standard deviation shall be no greater than
6.8 inches at 600 yards, or alternatively, no greater than 1.8
inches at 200 yards using an indoor range.
 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is only required to have a standard deviation of 7/8" at 100 yards.  So, at 100 yards 99% of the bullet holes have to be within a 5.4 inch circle.

That's not really match stuff....

the only accuracy specs i've been able to find (from MIL-C-63989C) state:

3.11 Accuracy. Both average vertical standard deviation and
the average horizontal standard deviation shall be no greater than
6.8 inches at 600 yards, or alternatively, no greater than 1.8
inches at 200 yards using an indoor range.
 
lysanderxiii's information is basically taking the accuracy standard from the MIL-C spec and doing additional math to give a value for 99% of hits.  

One Standard Deviation captures approximately 1/3 of samples above OR below the mean (the average of all samples).  So 1/3 of the target hits must be  within 6.8" up OR down from the center and within 6.8" left OR right from the center (mean) hit.  That means the RADIUS of the circle enclosing 2/3 of the target hits is 6.8".  By cranking through some math that's best left out of this discussion, you can find a value that matches any specific percentage of those target hits - the "confidence level" or "alpha" for that distribution.  The values he provides look pretty good.
Link Posted: 6/28/2015 10:50:36 AM EDT
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_16/511804_.html
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 6:33:53 AM EDT
What I meant by "beat up" is dented.

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_16/511804_.html
View Quote


Interesting source. Thanks.

I'll have to shoot some groups one of these days and take notes.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 7:54:47 AM EDT
What makes more sense:  It's extra ammo that they're making, or ATK is so incompetent that they're making tens of millions of rejected ammo each year?

MG ammo isn't made for accuracy.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 8:00:27 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Thinking crazy... But the 855 from Lake City isn't pretty, but shoots good for me. I like PMC both 193 and 855 too..
View Quote


I've never had an issue with Lake City either. Agreed on the not pretty, but I've never had a functional issue.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 8:57:36 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
-I REALLY hate saying the word "mil-spec" in ANY notes BUT the US mil-spec is to leave the annealing coloring on the cases alone (so you can see it was done).  So LC etc don't do a final tumbling of the ammunition to remove it.  That is why it looks bad.  The fact other companies (like some foreign companies) DO do that means nothing to me.  Except if you want to get into a "mil-spec" argument- they aren't following the specifications and leaving the coloring as is.
View Quote

There is nothing in the specification, or on the drawing, that says to leave the annealing color on the case, nor is there anything that says to remove it.  So, either way is  "to specification"....
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 3:43:39 PM EDT
Most of the XM stuff is contract overrun material too. I have opened XM193 and seen a NATO headstamp on it. The problem is there is no NATO Standardization agreement (STANAG) for 55gr 223/556 ammo and thus should not have a NATO stamp. The cases was the scrap left over from the real M855 production or stuff that for one reason didn't pass.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 8:27:59 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Most of the XM stuff is contract overrun material too. I have opened XM193 and seen a NATO headstamp on it. The problem is there is no NATO Standardization agreement (STANAG) for 55gr 223/556 ammo and thus should not have a NATO stamp. The cases was the scrap left over from the real M855 production or stuff that for one reason didn't pass.
View Quote

Correction: the XM193 with NATO-marked brass is made from leftover M855 brass not used to make M855.  Not "scrap" - that term has the wrong connotation, and not rejected either.  "Excess" is a better word.  And Lake City has all the resources needed to simply scrap bad brass and start over.  They don't need to use substandard brass, ever.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 9:02:08 PM EDT
Lysander:

Actually it is, by mil spec, required to leave the annealing showing  


MIL-C-9936F (M193)
Para 4.3.2.1
Classification of Defects:

21      No visible evidence of mouth anneal      X (major defect)


So YES, having the annealing showing is per "mil-spec."  Well US mil-spec.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:28:48 PM EDT
And for M855 it is the same:

MIL-C-6398C (AR)
Para 4.5.6.1

Inspection #106.  
An error occurred on the server when processing the URL. Please contact the system administrator.

If you are the system administrator please click here to find out more about this error.