Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 9/26/2011 6:15:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/22/2011 8:40:18 AM EST by M4A3Master]

School me...
Link Posted: 9/26/2011 6:32:44 PM EST
It's not recommended for duty use
Link Posted: 9/26/2011 6:53:28 PM EST

The M885 is a mil-spec cartridge. The rounds marked "Not for Duty Use"
had ballistic variations that were outside of mil-spec.


Federal Ammunition
Link Posted: 9/26/2011 6:55:23 PM EST
It will explode. Send it to me...I know an EOD tech.

Link Posted: 9/26/2011 9:09:00 PM EST
Originally Posted By SirSqueeboo:
It will explode. Send it to me...I know an EOD tech.

I'm the EOD tech
Link Posted: 9/26/2011 9:22:04 PM EST

XM != M
Link Posted: 9/27/2011 11:51:15 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/27/2011 1:28:11 PM EST
Ok did we answer the question?
Link Posted: 9/27/2011 4:14:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/27/2011 4:30:58 PM EST by rgb03]
Originally Posted By BallisticTip:
Ok did we answer the question?

second poster did. it isnt recommened for duty use for whatever reason the lot was rejected by whoever rejected it for whatever reason.

edit to add. just found this on the second page of this forum. a little looking around will go a long way. check out this thread. there is a post from someone at sg ammo that explains why the ammo is not for duty.
Link Posted: 9/27/2011 4:56:29 PM EST
It just didn't pass one of the many specs the .mil has for their ammo.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:56:19 PM EST
More specifically, some fraction of the production run that was randomlyselected for testing did not meet one or another acceptance standard, so the whole run was rejected. Military acceptance standards are built for high levels of confidence in the ammunition's functioning and performance, so instead of a commercial approach where perhaps a second random sample was tested to zero in on the production problem, the military standard says "no" after too much variation in the first sample. It could be that some small (acceptable) number of rounds was outside of accuracy standards while another (also acceptable) number failed velocity and yet another small (and still acceptable) number didn't pass the waterproofing tests.

This stuff is not the "floor sweepings" that were marketed in bulk several years ago, as evidenced by the completion of the production process (rounds with green tips and on strippers in tip protector sleeves). I can't wait for the combination of survivable weather and free time I need to test out my own box of "AC1" (I.e. Widener's picture, not the OP's).
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 12:19:51 PM EST
I like rejects.
Top Top