Those pics just hurt looking at them...

I honestly can't imagine being hit by an MK262 or 77g. projectile with such devastating fragmentation. I hope I give rather than receive...

Rmpl

Originally Posted By Molon: I came across a few more "gel shots" for comparison. SAAMI pressure Hornady 75 grain OTM from a 16" barrel home.comcast.net/~gocartmozart/SAMMI_pressure_Hornady_75_gel_shot_from_16_inch_barrel.jpg

Note the relatively low velocity in that shot - only 2540 fps.  That's pretty good terminal performance for a round going that "slow".

Here is an interesting gel-shot for comparison.  It illustrates the problem from a terminal ballistic standpoint of using M855 in a 14.5" barreled M4.  Look at the length of that neck!  (Remember, the anterior-posterior measurement [thickness] of the upper chest area of the average adult male in America is 9.5" and even less for "Skinnies".)

Since we are posting gel pics, i'll add this one:

Originally Posted By MrKasab: Reading Bushmaster's reveiw here it sounds to me like their 40 gr. bullets would be the best thing for inside your house. I wonder if anyone knows how it would perform out of a 1:7 twist barrel.

I would HATE to be hit in the CHEST with that round

Originally Posted By Thunderbolt882: What we're seeing in the picture is gonna be the match bullet (With cannelure? Otherwise the exact same bullet.) loaded to SAAMI specs, since it would be a couple years before the T2 appears. I'd like to imagine the 8126N with it's own bullet and extra boost of 5.56 behind it would increase penetration a bit.

Sometimes you can get LESS Penetration with XTRA FPS

Originally Posted By Rmplstlskn: Those pics just hurt looking at them... I honestly can't imagine being hit by an MK262 or 77g. projectile with such devastating fragmentation. I hope I give rather than receive... Rmpl

I rather get hit in the Chest  by a 77gr SMK at 300yards than a 35/45gr Ballistic Tip Type ammo

Originally Posted By eswanson: Originally Posted By Molon: I came across a few more "gel shots" for comparison. SAAMI pressure Hornady 75 grain OTM from a 16" barrel home.comcast.net/~gocartmozart/SAMMI_pressure_Hornady_75_gel_shot_from_16_inch_barrel.jpg Note the relatively low velocity in that shot - only 2540 fps.  That's pretty good terminal performance for a round going that "slow".

AGREED

Originally Posted By FMJ: Originally Posted By Rmplstlskn: Those pics just hurt looking at them... I honestly can't imagine being hit by an MK262 or 77g. projectile with such devastating fragmentation. I hope I give rather than receive... Rmpl I rather get hit in the Chest  by a 77gr SMK at 300yards than a 35/45gr Ballistic Tip Type ammo

I prefer to not be hit at all!  

I just received a couple shipments of ammunition that I plan on performing accuracy and chronograph testing on, including HSM's 5.56-17T, 223-17T and the latest production lot of 5.56 TAP.  I'll problably start the testing next weekend so stay tuned for results.

HSM 5.56 Ammo Comparison


There is now a third, commercially available 5.56mm cartridge being loaded to NATO pressures using a “heavy” OTM bullet on the market; the other two being Hornady’s 75 grain 5.56 TAP load and the Black Hills 77 grain MK262 load.  HSM (The Hunting Shack) has begun loading Hornady’s 75 grain OTM bullet with cannelure (the T1C as it has come to be referred to here at AR15.com) to NATO pressures.

The round is loaded using ball powder and has crimped and sealed primer pockets.  It also has a heavy collet crimped case neck and an asphalt sealant is used at the case neck.  The load is designated as the 5.56-17T.

HSM is also producing another load using Hornady’s T1C bullet, designated as the 223-17T.  This load also uses ball powder but is loaded to a velocity in between their NATO pressure load and the SAAMI pressure Hornady TAP FPD load.  The particular lot of this load that I received has a lighter collet crimp than the 5.56-17T load and does not use the asphalt sealant at the case neck.  Nor does it have crimped or sealed primer pockets.  It has been stated that the primer pockets will be crimped and sealed on future loadings.



asphalt sealant




cannelures




case neck crimps








primer pockets












Since the 5.56-17T load is considered to be an alternative round for Hornady’s 5.56 TAP, I decided to do an accuracy and chronograph comparison between the two.  While I was at it, I also included the 223-17T load in the comparison as well.

Chronographing was done using an Oehler 35-P chronograph with “proof screen” technology.  All velocities listed are muzzle velocities as calculated from instrumental velocities using Oehler’s Ballistic Explorer software.  Three different Colt barrels were used in chronographing:  a 14.5” M4, a 16” light-weight profile and a 20” government profile.



barrels




The chronograph data.




Accuracy testing of the new rounds will begin shortly and the results posted ASAP.




Atmospheric conditions

Temperature:  74 degrees F
Humidity:   69%
Barometric pressure:  30.09
Elevation:  950 feet above sea level
Skies:  overcast, Jupiter rising

HSM 5.56-17T Accuracy Testing


As explained previously in this thread, normally when I evaluate the accuracy of a particular load I use one of my stainless steel Krieger barrels as the test vehicle.  However, since this test involves the NATO pressure 5.56-17T load I did not want to risk pressure issues by firing a NATO pressure load in a match chambered, tightly rifled barrel.  Therefore, I chose one of my Colt 20” HBARs to use as the test vehicle.  This barrel is free-floated and even though it has a NATO chamber and chrome lining, it is capable of shooting 10-shot groups from 100 yards that hover right around 1.00”.





Testing of the HSM 5.56-17T load was conducted following my usual method of accuracy evaluation.  Three 10-shot groups were fired at 100 yards from a bench-rest.  All ten shots in each group were included in the measurements.

Prior to firing the test rounds, I fired a 10-shot group from 100 yards using one of my standard hand-loads; a Sierra 55 grain BlitzKing with a muzzle velocity of approximately 3000 fps.  This group measured 1.06”.  This is typical of the accuracy this barrel is capable of producing.  I have fired a total of five control loads from this barrel throughout the testing for this thread.  Those groups measured 1.05”, 1.06”, 1.10”, 1.00” and 1.06”.  I believe this demonstrates the capabilities of this barrel rather well.  Here is a pic of the group fired using the control load.





The three 10-shot groups of the 5.56-17T load fired from 100 yards and used for analysis measured, in order of firing:

1.81”
1.76”
2.04”.

These three groups were over-layed on each other using the RSI Shooting Lab software program to form a 30-round composite group.  The mean radius (explained here) of this composite group measured 0.58”. In an effort to validate these results and give the 5.56-17T load ample opportunity to prove itself, I fired two additional 10-shot groups from 100 yards that measured 1.67” and 2.11”.  All five of the 10-shot groups were over-layed on each other to form a 50-round composite group.  The mean radius for this 50-round composite group measured 0.57”.

This is a pic of the smallest group from the 5.56-17T load.



For comparison, the 30-round composite group created from three 10-shot groups of Hornady’s 5.56 TAP ammunition fired from the same Colt HBAR had a mean radius 0.46”.  Here are the composite groups side-by-side.  





To give you an additional perspective, the mean radius of a 30-round composite group of IMI M193 fired from the same Colt barrel was 0.72”.






I’ll be posting the results of the accuracy testing of the 223-17T load soon.

Molon

Molon,

Great work as always. I was waiting on your report on the 5.56-T before buying a case.

Looks good to go. Hey, where did you get a nice stand your rifle is on in the picture ? I need to get one of these.

Originally Posted By ArmedFF: Molon, Great work as always. I was waiting on your report on the 5.56-T before buying a case. Looks good to go. Hey, where did you get a nice stand your rifle is on in the picture ? I need to get one of these.

Plasitx Plus

HSM 223-17T Accuracy Report


Accuracy testing for HSM’s 223-17T load was conducted in the same manner as for the 5.56-17T load.  Three 10-shot groups were fired from 100 yards for evaluation.  All ten shots of each group were included in the measurements of the groups.

The shooting was done at 100 yards from a concrete bench like the one pictured below.  The same Colt 20” HBAR that was used in testing the 5.56-17T load was used as the test vehicle in order to give a fair comparison to the 5.56-17T load.


The barrel.





The bench.





The free-float tube of the rifle was rested on a Sinclair rest, while the stock of the rifle rested on a Protektor rabbit ear bag.  I used a modified Sinclair fore-end stabilizer that attached to the Picatinny rail on the free-float tube to help the rifle track better in the rest.  The LMT lower used as the test mule houses a Geissele Match Rifle 2-stage trigger that breaks at 1.5 pounds!  The buttstock has a 3.5 pound lead weight added to it.


The Sinclair rest.








The fore-end stabilizer.





The rabbit ear bag.





For sighting I used a Leupold 45 X 45mm Competition Series scope with adjustable parallax.  Wind conditions on the range were monitored using a “Wind Probe” produced by Gene Beggs (of bench-rest competition notoriety.)


Leupold 45 X 45mm scope.



The "Wind Probe."





Shooting was done at a slow pace in order to closely monitor the wind conditions and to reduce eye/shooter fatigue.  The Colt 20” HBAR used in testing is capable of shooting 10-shot groups from 100 yards that hover right around one inch.  Throughout the testing for this thread, I have obtained a total of five 10-shot control groups fired from this barrel at 100 yards using hand-loaded Sierra bullets.  The five groups measured as follows:

1.05”
1.06”
1.10”
1.00”
1.06”.

The composite mean radius for the control groups measured 0.32”.


223-17T

The three 10-shot groups fired from 100 yards using the 223-17T load measured as follows:

1.47”
1.72”
1.75”.


Here is a pic of the smallest 10-shot group obtained.



The three groups were over-layed on each other using the RSI Shooting Lab software program to obtain a 30-round composite group.  The mean radius of the 30-round composite group measured 0.52”.   In an effort to validate these results and give the 223-17T load ample opportunity to prove itself, I fired two additional 10-shot groups.  Those groups measured 1.86” and 1.57”.  All five groups were over-layed on each to form a 50-round composite group.  The mean radius for the 50-round composite group measured 0.53”.  

For comparison, a 30-round composite group formed by over-laying three 10-shot groups of Hornady’s 75 grain TAP FPD load fired from the same Colt barrel had a mean radius of 0.37”.  Here are those two composite groups pictured next to each other.





Here are the 30-round composite groups from the 5.56-17T load and the 223-17T next to each other for comparison.





Lastly, here is an image showing the best 10-shot group from each load placed side-by-side for comparison.

It appears the HSM loads are less accurate than expected. Not bad, but not winning any matches either. The 5.56 load seems to be a good choice for defense if the MK262's are too pricey.

Thanks again Molon... some of the BEST ammo tests I have ever read.

Rmpl

Thanks again Molon... some of the BEST ammo tests I have ever read.

I'll second that Molon. Thanks again for your hard work.

Originally Posted By FMJ: Originally Posted By MrKasab: Reading Bushmaster's reveiw here it sounds to me like their 40 gr. bullets would be the best thing for inside your house. I wonder if anyone knows how it would perform out of a 1:7 twist barrel. I would HATE to be hit in the CHEST with that round

Lets keep it in context though.  If you were to shoot someone in their arm before the chest as in a shot from the side the bullet would completely fail to penetrate the torso.  I cannot think of a more ill-suited round for home defense or LE use.

Originally Posted By Molon:

Molon,

I think you should include a disclaimer with this photo: NO ANIMALS WERE HARMED DURING THE TESTING OF THIS AMMO.

Originally Posted By CitySlicker: Originally Posted By Molon: img133.imageshack.us/img133/6521/windprobe03framedva0.jpg Molon, I think you should include a disclaimer with this photo: NO ANIMALS WERE HARMED DURING THE TESTING OF THIS AMMO.

I had entirely too much time on my hand today so I decided to figure out the Fragmentation range of the HSM 223-17T, HSM 556-17T, and Hornady 5.56 TAP.  I used the JBM program and I based the maximum fragmentation range at a velocity of 2300 fps.  I'm pretty sure Molon will verify these numbers and make them look pretty.

HSM 223-17T:
14.5" Barrel = 105 yards.
16.0" Barrel = 130 yards.
20.0" Barrel = 175 yards.

HSM 556-17T:
14.5" Barrel = 130 yards.
16.0" Barrel = 165 yards.
20.0" Barrel = 205 yards.

Hornady 5.56 TAP:
14.5" Barrel = 135 yards.
16.0" Barrel = 160 yards.
20.0" Barrel = 205 yards.

Originally Posted By paulosantos: I had entirely too much time on my hand today so I decided to figure out the Fragmentation range of the HSM 223-17T, HSM 556-17T, and Hornady 5.56 TAP.  I used the JBM program and I based the maximum fragmentation range at a velocity of 2300 fps.  I'm pretty sure Molon will verify these numbers and make them look pretty. HSM 223-17T: 14.5" Barrel = 105 yards. 16.0" Barrel = 130 yards. 20.0" Barrel = 175 yards. HSM 556-17T: 14.5" Barrel = 130 yards. 16.0" Barrel = 165 yards. 20.0" Barrel = 205 yards. Hornady 5.56 TAP: 14.5" Barrel = 135 yards. 16.0" Barrel = 160 yards. 20.0" Barrel = 205 yards.

Maybe I'm smoking crack here, but those seem way low.

Originally Posted By ORinTX: Originally Posted By paulosantos: I had entirely too much time on my hand today so I decided to figure out the Fragmentation range of the HSM 223-17T, HSM 556-17T, and Hornady 5.56 TAP.  I used the JBM program and I based the maximum fragmentation range at a velocity of 2300 fps.  I'm pretty sure Molon will verify these numbers and make them look pretty. HSM 223-17T: 14.5" Barrel = 105 yards. 16.0" Barrel = 130 yards. 20.0" Barrel = 175 yards. HSM 556-17T: 14.5" Barrel = 130 yards. 16.0" Barrel = 165 yards. 20.0" Barrel = 205 yards. Hornady 5.56 TAP: 14.5" Barrel = 135 yards. 16.0" Barrel = 160 yards. 20.0" Barrel = 205 yards. Maybe I'm smoking crack here, but those seem way low.

Yes, you are smoking crack.  Please get help.

Taken from page one of this thread, first post:

Originally Posted By Molon: The general consensus seems to be that 2,300 fps is the fragmentation threshold for the 75 grain bullets. Based on this figure the table below shows the range (in yards) at which fragmentation can be expected to occur for the two loads being tested. It also shows the gain (in yards) before reaching the fragmentation threshold for the 5.56 TAP load.

The figures are identical.

Justin

Molon,

If the moderators have refused to tack this, do you know how I could save it onto my hard drive?  Eventually, I'd like to save all of them.  If I understand correctly, there's the FREE-FLOAT VERSUS NON-FREE-FLOAT, The Trouble With 3-Shot Groups, and of course Hornady 5.56 TAP versus TAP FPD.  Any others?

Thanks.

Justin

Originally Posted By paulosantos: I had entirely too much time on my hand today so I decided to figure out the Fragmentation range of the HSM 223-17T, HSM 556-17T, and Hornady 5.56 TAP.  I used the JBM program and I based the maximum fragmentation range at a velocity of 2300 fps.  I'm pretty sure Molon will verify these numbers and make them look pretty. HSM 223-17T: 14.5" Barrel = 105 yards. 16.0" Barrel = 130 yards. 20.0" Barrel = 175 yards. HSM 556-17T: 14.5" Barrel = 130 yards. 16.0" Barrel = 165 yards. 20.0" Barrel = 205 yards. Hornady 5.56 TAP: 14.5" Barrel = 135 yards. 16.0" Barrel = 160 yards. 20.0" Barrel = 205 yards.

As we all know, there are many variables involved in attempting to determine a fragmentation range for any given load.  Back near the beginning of this thread we had a lengthy discussion on the varying figures myself and other members came up with for the fragmentation range of the TAP loads.  

After some debate, I settled on using a ballistic coefficient of 0.352 for the T1C bullet as well as the T2 bullet.  These are not the numbers published by Hornady, so right there you will have a difference in results if someone is using Hornady's published numbers.  Instead of the 2300 fps fragmentation threshold originally posted, I now use the threshold of 2250 fps again giving a difference in results.

I also decided to use Standard Atmospheric Conditions for fragmentation tables even though chronographing may have been done under different conditions.  This is one of the reasons I calculate and post muzzle velocities rather than the instrument velocity/distance of chronograph from muzzle data.

The table reposted by CitySlicker above was revised later in the thread to reflect the philosophy stated in this post.

Having said all that, here are the figures I came up with for the HSM ammunition and the newest production lot of Hornady 5.56 TAP.  (The newest lot is the tiniest bit slower than the first lot I evaluated for this post.)

I used the same numbers except I put the Fragmentation threshold at 2300 fps instead of 2250 fps.  That is why my numbers are lower.

Edit to correct the velocity numbers.

Originally Posted By paulosantos: I used the same numbers except I put the Fragmentation threshold at 2300 fps instead of 2500 fps.  That is why my numbers are lower.

Now I'm really confused.  Lowering the threshold should extend the range, should it not?  It allows for the bullet to still fragment at a lower velocity, such as when it's traveled further.

Originally Posted By ORinTX: Originally Posted By paulosantos: I used the same numbers except I put the Fragmentation threshold at 2300 fps instead of 2500 fps.  That is why my numbers are lower. Now I'm really confused.  Lowering the threshold should extend the range, should it not?  It allows for the bullet to still fragment at a lower velocity, such as when it's traveled further.

Actually. just the opposite.

Originally Posted By CitySlicker: Molon, If the moderators have refused to tack this, do you know how I could save it onto my hard drive?  Eventually, I'd like to save all of them.  If I understand correctly, there's the FREE-FLOAT VERSUS NON-FREE-FLOAT, The Trouble With 3-Shot Groups, and of course Hornady 5.56 TAP versus TAP FPD.  Any others? Thanks. Justin

IM sent.

Molon

Originally Posted By paulosantos: Originally Posted By ORinTX: Originally Posted By paulosantos: I used the same numbers except I put the Fragmentation threshold at 2300 fps instead of 2500 fps.  That is why my numbers are lower. Now I'm really confused.  Lowering the threshold should extend the range, should it not?  It allows for the bullet to still fragment at a lower velocity, such as when it's traveled further. Actually. just the opposite.

You're talking about the minimum velocity required for fragementation?  You're telling me that the lower the min velocity required for fragementation, the shorter the fragementation range of the load is?

My brain must be real tired today, because that sounds backwards to me.

Originally Posted By ORinTX: Originally Posted By paulosantos: Originally Posted By ORinTX: Originally Posted By paulosantos: I used the same numbers except I put the Fragmentation threshold at 2300 fps instead of 2500 fps.  That is why my numbers are lower. Now I'm really confused.  Lowering the threshold should extend the range, should it not?  It allows for the bullet to still fragment at a lower velocity, such as when it's traveled further. Actually. just the opposite. You're talking about the minimum velocity required for fragementation?  You're telling me that the lower the min velocity required for fragementation, the shorter the fragementation range of the load is? My brain must be real tired today, because that sounds backwards to me.

Sorry, you are correct, I wrote 2500 instead of 2250.  My mistake.

Would anyone be interested in seeing a test of the accuracy of Hornady's 5.56 TAP from a 16" Noveske stainless steel barrel

I'll bite,

Molon could you possibly provide us with accuracy results of 5.56 pressure TAP from a 16" Noveske stainless steel barrel?

Please.

Thank you,
Scott

What a coincidence.  I just happen to have come into possession of a Noveske 16" stainless steel barrel.  I'm building a RECCE around it with a 9" LaRue free-float tube.  I'm hoping it will be a real tack-driver.

Now the cool part about the Noveske barrel is that it has a custom chamber designated as the:  5.56 Noveske Match Mod 0.  Here's a quote from Noveske's web site about their custom chamber:

"The Noveske Match Mod 0 chamber is designed to offer 100% reliability while retaining maximum possible accuracy. The chamber body is slightly larger than the 5.56mm NATO minimum, but within the 5.56 NATO tolerance. The throat is redesigned for proper bullet alignment with the axis of the bore. This chamber was developed to fire MK262 Mod 1 on AUTO in hot environments."

While all the accuracy testing so far for this thread has been done with the Colt 20" HBAR due to the NATO pressure rounds being tested, I have previously stated in this thread that ". . . a match barrel, with say a Wylde chamber, might produce tighter groups than this barrel. . ." with the 5.56 TAP.

The Noveske stainless steel barrel with the Noveske Match Mod 0 chamber sounds like just the ticket to test this theory and since the chamber was developed to fire MK262, firing the 5.56 TAP from it shouldn't be a problem.

I think you should test out my Wilson 16" 1x8 Wylde Chamber barrel.

Originally Posted By paulosantos: I think you should test out my Wilson 16" 1x8 Wylde Chamber barrel.

Road Trip!!  

Accuracy of 5.56 TAP From a Noveske Barrel

I recently assembled a RECCE upper using a Noveske 16” stainless steel recon barrel with a Noveske custom chamber designed to handle NATO pressure ammo.  This barrel shoots very well with hand-loaded 77 grain Sierra MatchKings so I thought it would be a good test vehicle for the 5.56 TAP ammunition.





Testing was done at 100 yards from a bench rest.  A Leupold VARI-X III set at 25X magnification was used for sighting.  As per my usual method of accuracy testing, three 10-shot groups were obtained for analysis.  Prior to shooting the 5.56 TAP ammunition, I obtained three 10-shot groups using one of my standard hand-loads for 77 grain MatchKings.  Those three groups measured as follows:

0.81”
0.93”
1.01”.

These three groups were over-layed on each other using the RSI Shooting Lab software program to obtain a 30-shot composite group.  The mean radius for this composite group measured 0.28”.   Here’s a pic of the best 10-shot group of the 77 grain MatchKings.





The three 10-shot groups of the 5.56 TAP ammunition measured as follows:

1.03”
1.20”
1.42”.

Those groups were also over-layed on each other to create a 30-shot composite group with a mean radius of 0.37”.   For comparison, the same lot of 5.56 TAP ammunition fired from a 20" Colt HBAR previously for this thread had a mean radius of 0.46” with the 10-shot groups measuring 1.16”, 1.38” and 1.45”.  

The 5.56 TAP ammunition had an improvement in accuracy of approximately 20% when fired from the Noveske barrel as compared to the Colt HBAR.  Here is a pic of the best 10-shot group of the 5.56 TAP from the Noveske barrel.





For comparison, here is a pic of the 30-round composite groups next to each other.





Below, I have highlighted the circle scribed by the mean radius for each group to give a better graphic representation of the differences in accuracy.  










Here are some pics of the Noveske barrel and my RECCE build.


The Noveske barrel out of the box.



The Noveske gas block.







The barrel markings.



My Noveske RECCE.















The Leupld VARI-X III used during testing.

Damn, I've heard that the Noveske barrels were accurate, and I guess they were correct.

Very nice work as always Molon!  I wonder how much of a fluke that one errant shot during the 3rd string is.  IE, how repeatable that result would be if more 30 round strings were fired.  Sure would shrink the group without it.

Molon,

By any chance, did you do any chrono work?  The reason I ask is because several respected members of this form have stated that a 16.1" RECON barrel from Noveske Rifleworks offers the same velocity as a standard chrome lined 18" barrel.  I was hoping you could give us a definitive answer on this.

Thanks for the great work Molon!

Justin

EDIT:  And we really need to get you an 18" barrel, just to see how much velocity is gained between 18" to 20".

Originally Posted By CitySlicker: Molon, By any chance, did you do any chrono work?  The reason I ask is because several respected members of this form have stated that a 16.1" RECON barrel from Noveske Rifleworks offers the same velocity as a standard chrome lined 18" barrel.  I was hoping you could give us a definitive answer on this. Thanks for the great work Molon! Justin EDIT:  And we really need to get you an 18" barrel, just to see how much velocity is gained between 18" to 20".

WHat you must understand is the tighter chamber of the Noveske (or any match barrel) will yeild higher pressures and thus velocity... not the rifling by itself.  If a chrome lined barrel had a Wylde chamber instead of NATO I am sure the difference in velocity would be much less.

Originally Posted By DevL: Originally Posted By CitySlicker: Molon, By any chance, did you do any chrono work?  The reason I ask is because several respected members of this form have stated that a 16.1" RECON barrel from Noveske Rifleworks offers the same velocity as a standard chrome lined 18" barrel.  I was hoping you could give us a definitive answer on this. Thanks for the great work Molon! Justin EDIT:  And we really need to get you an 18" barrel, just to see how much velocity is gained between 18" to 20". WHat you must understand is the tighter chamber of the Noveske (or any match barrel) will yeild higher pressures and thus velocity... not the rifling by itself.  If a chrome lined barrel had a Wylde chamber instead of NATO I am sure the difference in velocity would be much less.

Yup.  My Krieger barrels give higher velocities (using the same load) than my Colt NATO chambered barrels of the same length.

Justin,

Chronograph testing with the Noveske barrel is on the top of my short list of things to do.  The hold-up is the weather here in Michigan.  For consistecny in comparing results I don't like to chronograph below 70 degrees F and it's getting a little chilly here in MI.  The next warm weekend that we have when I'm not working I'll be packing up the chronograph and heading to the range.

When I do chronograph the Noveske barrel, I plan on doing a side-by-side comparison with a 16" NATO chambered Colt barrel and a 16" Krieger barrel.  

Molon

Originally Posted By DevL: Originally Posted By CitySlicker: WHat you must understand is the tighter chamber of the Noveske (or any match barrel) will yeild higher pressures and thus velocity... not the rifling by itself.  If a chrome lined barrel had a Wylde chamber instead of NATO I am sure the difference in velocity would be much less. Yeah I was referring to his proprietary 5.56 Noveske Match Mod 0 chamber.  The question is, which is faster, that or .223 Wylde. Originally Posted By Molon: Originally Posted By DevL: Originally Posted By CitySlicker: Molon, By any chance, did you do any chrono work?  The reason I ask is because several respected members of this form have stated that a 16.1" RECON barrel from Noveske Rifleworks offers the same velocity as a standard chrome lined 18" barrel.  I was hoping you could give us a definitive answer on this. Thanks for the great work Molon! Justin EDIT:  And we really need to get you an 18" barrel, just to see how much velocity is gained between 18" to 20". WHat you must understand is the tighter chamber of the Noveske (or any match barrel) will yeild higher pressures and thus velocity... not the rifling by itself.  If a chrome lined barrel had a Wylde chamber instead of NATO I am sure the difference in velocity would be much less. Yup.  My Krieger barrels give higher velocities (using the same load) than my Colt NATO chambered barrels of the same length. Justin, Chronograph testing with the Noveske barrel is on the top of my short list of things to do.  The hold-up is the weather here in Michigan.  For consistecny in comparing results I don't like to chronograph below 70 degrees F and it's getting a little chilly here in MI.  The next warm weekend that we have when I'm not working I'll be packing up the chronograph and heading to the range. When I do chronograph the Noveske barrel, I plan on doing a side-by-side comparison with a 16" NATO chambered Colt barrel and a 16" Krieger barrel.   Molon

Molon,

Thank you!  You're the best; one of these days, I'll figure out how to repay you.

By the way, in your experience, how much faster have your Krieger barrels been (compared to the Colt NATO)?

Thanks again Molon.

Originally Posted By CitySlicker: Originally Posted By DevL: Originally Posted By CitySlicker: WHat you must understand is the tighter chamber of the Noveske (or any match barrel) will yeild higher pressures and thus velocity... not the rifling by itself.  If a chrome lined barrel had a Wylde chamber instead of NATO I am sure the difference in velocity would be much less. Yeah I was referring to his proprietary 5.56 Noveske Match Mod 0 chamber.  The question is, which is faster, that or .223 Wylde. Originally Posted By Molon: Originally Posted By DevL: Originally Posted By CitySlicker: Molon, By any chance, did you do any chrono work?  The reason I ask is because several respected members of this form have stated that a 16.1" RECON barrel from Noveske Rifleworks offers the same velocity as a standard chrome lined 18" barrel.  I was hoping you could give us a definitive answer on this. Thanks for the great work Molon! Justin EDIT:  And we really need to get you an 18" barrel, just to see how much velocity is gained between 18" to 20". WHat you must understand is the tighter chamber of the Noveske (or any match barrel) will yeild higher pressures and thus velocity... not the rifling by itself.  If a chrome lined barrel had a Wylde chamber instead of NATO I am sure the difference in velocity would be much less. Yup.  My Krieger barrels give higher velocities (using the same load) than my Colt NATO chambered barrels of the same length. Justin, Chronograph testing with the Noveske barrel is on the top of my short list of things to do.  The hold-up is the weather here in Michigan.  For consistecny in comparing results I don't like to chronograph below 70 degrees F and it's getting a little chilly here in MI.  The next warm weekend that we have when I'm not working I'll be packing up the chronograph and heading to the range. When I do chronograph the Noveske barrel, I plan on doing a side-by-side comparison with a 16" NATO chambered Colt barrel and a 16" Krieger barrel.   Molon Molon, Thank you!  You're the best; one of these days, I'll figure out how to repay you. By the way, in your experience, how much faster have your Krieger barrels been (compared to the Colt NATO)? Thanks again Molon.

I usually only run hand-loads through my Krieger barrels and the velocity differences seem variable depending on the bullet weight, powder and powder charge.  I haven't done any formal testing yet, but as an example a 55 grain Sierra BlitzKing loaded with a relatively faster burning powder and running around 3,000 fps from a 20" Colt barrel will run around 3,050 fps from one of my 20" Krieger barrels.  One of these days when I have some spare time (maybe when they add another day to the week) I'll do some formal testing on the subject.

Here's a little FYI.  The land to land dimension of the rifling on a Krieger barrel is only 0.218" as compared to 0.219" for a typical 5.56/223 barrel.  I can't help but think that this adds a little to the pressure also.

Molon

Molon, this is kind of off topic and kind of on.  What do you think of shooting the Hornady LE Practice tap through a Noveske barrel.  I am worried about the steel casings doing damage.

Originally Posted By steve0: Molon, this is kind of off topic and kind of on.  What do you think of shooting the Hornady LE Practice tap through a Noveske barrel.  I am worried about the steel casings doing damage.

Not Molon, but John Noveske recommends against shooting steel cased ammo through it.  It's very common for steel cases to have burrs, and those burrs in turn will cause gouges in the chamber.  Just a few weeks ago, an ARFCOMMER was recounting how this exact scenario happened to him.

Originally Posted By Molon: Originally Posted By CitySlicker: Originally Posted By DevL: Originally Posted By CitySlicker: WHat you must understand is the tighter chamber of the Noveske (or any match barrel) will yeild higher pressures and thus velocity... not the rifling by itself.  If a chrome lined barrel had a Wylde chamber instead of NATO I am sure the difference in velocity would be much less. Yeah I was referring to his proprietary 5.56 Noveske Match Mod 0 chamber.  The question is, which is faster, that or .223 Wylde. Originally Posted By Molon: Originally Posted By DevL: Originally Posted By CitySlicker: Molon, By any chance, did you do any chrono work?  The reason I ask is because several respected members of this form have stated that a 16.1" RECON barrel from Noveske Rifleworks offers the same velocity as a standard chrome lined 18" barrel.  I was hoping you could give us a definitive answer on this. Thanks for the great work Molon! Justin EDIT:  And we really need to get you an 18" barrel, just to see how much velocity is gained between 18" to 20". WHat you must understand is the tighter chamber of the Noveske (or any match barrel) will yeild higher pressures and thus velocity... not the rifling by itself.  If a chrome lined barrel had a Wylde chamber instead of NATO I am sure the difference in velocity would be much less. Yup.  My Krieger barrels give higher velocities (using the same load) than my Colt NATO chambered barrels of the same length. Justin, Chronograph testing with the Noveske barrel is on the top of my short list of things to do.  The hold-up is the weather here in Michigan.  For consistecny in comparing results I don't like to chronograph below 70 degrees F and it's getting a little chilly here in MI.  The next warm weekend that we have when I'm not working I'll be packing up the chronograph and heading to the range. When I do chronograph the Noveske barrel, I plan on doing a side-by-side comparison with a 16" NATO chambered Colt barrel and a 16" Krieger barrel.   Molon Molon, Thank you!  You're the best; one of these days, I'll figure out how to repay you. By the way, in your experience, how much faster have your Krieger barrels been (compared to the Colt NATO)? Thanks again Molon. I usually only run hand-loads through my Krieger barrels and the velocity differences seem variable depending on the bullet weight, powder and powder charge.  I haven't done any formal testing yet, but as an example a 55 grain Sierra BlitzKing loaded with a relatively faster burning powder and running around 3,000 fps from a 20" Colt barrel will run around 3,050 fps from one of my 20" Krieger barrels.  One of these days when I have some spare time (maybe when they add another day to the week) I'll do some formal testing on the subject. Here's a little FYI.  The land to land dimension of the rifling on a Krieger barrel is only 0.218" as compared to 0.219" for a typical 5.56/223 barrel.  I can't help but think that this adds a little to the pressure also. Molon

Molon,

Thanks for clearing that up.  Until then, in your opinion, do you think it's likely that an 18" could offer as much velocity as a 20" NATO?

Justin

Molon,

What are reliable sources for the various 5.56 ammo choices? Lat time I checked TAP was a LE type round. I'm running abit low on my mk262 seconds.


ETA: ps. How do you save an entire thread like this to HDD?

Originally Posted By Akoni: ETA: ps. How do you save an entire thread like this to HDD?

If you're using Mozilla, under File->Save Page As... one of the choices for type is "Web Page, complete"  That will save the .html in a file and all the graphics in a subdirectory.  Just launch the .html file to re-view.  You'll have to save each page separately.

ETA: It looks like IE6 has as similar setting.  And one that can put it in a single file, but I didn't try it.

Molon,
Thanks again for your continued work  I think they should tack this baby.