Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 11/21/2008 3:03:15 PM EST
Need some help guys. Want to buy some high quality rounds for the AR.

I was going to go with the Hornady Tap 75grain (I have 1/7 barrel). It's really expensive on AmmoMan though $129.00 for 100 rounds (and they're sold out).

Though Privi isn't on the faq list, I've heard people hear that think highly of it. It's much cheaper too. .223 / 75gr. - 109.00 for 200 rounds or 439.00 for 1000.

Should I go with the Privi or pay more for the Hornady? Is Privi premium ammo?

Second question and I really hope someone answers it -

5.56 has higher pressure than .223 as I understand it. When I'm looking at ammo a lot of it says "5.56 / 223" like its the same thing. It isn't the same thing. Why don't they specify which one it is???

If it came time for you to shoot someone - would you feel better if you were loaded 5.56 instead of .223?
Link Posted: 11/21/2008 3:40:27 PM EST
I'll help as best I can and then someone else will come along and write the thesis.

First of all, and I'm being as serious as I can be here - either one will be more than adequate if you do your job. Shot placement is what matters. That being said, all the rage for SD ammo has been the TAP but I can't see paying those prices for it. Ask any of the guys on here that have been or currently are in Iraq - and they aren't using TAP.

Second - you are correct that 5.56 and .223 are not the same thing. As you know 5.56 produces higher pressure than .223 which means that it is safe to shoot either 5.56 OR .223 from a 5.56 chambered rifle but you should not shoot 5.56 from a .223 chambered rifle. However - .223 will kill the BG just as effectively as the 5.56 IF you do your job.

I'm sure a bullet guru will come in here with a lot of fancy graphs and KE tables but, IMO, get whatever you can afford the  most of and then practice enough with it to put your shots where they count.
Link Posted: 11/21/2008 7:04:29 PM EST
Quoted:
Need some help guys. Want to buy some high quality rounds for the AR.

I was going to go with the Hornady Tap 75grain (I have 1/7 barrel). It's really expensive on AmmoMan though $129.00 for 100 rounds (and they're sold out).

Though Privi isn't on the faq list, I've heard people hear that think highly of it. It's much cheaper too. .223 / 75gr. - 109.00 for 200 rounds or 439.00 for 1000.

Should I go with the Privi or pay more for the Hornady? Is Privi premium ammo?

Second question and I really hope someone answers it -

5.56 has higher pressure than .223 as I understand it. When I'm looking at ammo a lot of it says "5.56 / 223" like its the same thing. It isn't the same thing. Why don't they specify which one it is???

If it came time for you to shoot someone - would you feel better if you were loaded 5.56 instead of .223?



Privi 75grn match kills deer and hogs with ease here in GA.  Of course you have to do your part and aim the damn gun...

 
Link Posted: 11/21/2008 10:06:01 PM EST
Quoted:
Quoted:
Need some help guys. Want to buy some high quality rounds for the AR.

I was going to go with the Hornady Tap 75grain (I have 1/7 barrel). It's really expensive on AmmoMan though $129.00 for 100 rounds (and they're sold out).

Though Privi isn't on the faq list, I've heard people hear that think highly of it. It's much cheaper too. .223 / 75gr. - 109.00 for 200 rounds or 439.00 for 1000.

Should I go with the Privi or pay more for the Hornady? Is Privi premium ammo?

Second question and I really hope someone answers it -

5.56 has higher pressure than .223 as I understand it. When I'm looking at ammo a lot of it says "5.56 / 223" like its the same thing. It isn't the same thing. Why don't they specify which one it is???

If it came time for you to shoot someone - would you feel better if you were loaded 5.56 instead of .223?



Privi 75grn match kills deer and hogs with ease here in GA.  Of course you have to do your part and aim the damn gun...

 


PPU 75gr Match is unproven when it comes to fragmentation based on posts I have seen here. I think some gel-testing is in order some day.
Link Posted: 1/24/2009 3:11:07 AM EST
Quoted:
I'll help as best I can and then someone else will come along and write the thesis.

First of all, and I'm being as serious as I can be here - either one will be more than adequate if you do your job. Shot placement is what matters. That being said, all the rage for SD ammo has been the TAP but I can't see paying those prices for it. Ask any of the guys on here that have been or currently are in Iraq - and they aren't using TAP.ask those guys if they could have used75 gr tap over there if they would have stuck with the 62 gr bullets.  

Second - you are correct that 5.56 and .223 are not the same thing. As you know 5.56 produces higher pressure than .223 which means that it is safe to shoot either 5.56 OR .223 from a 5.56 chambered rifle but you should not shoot 5.56 from a .223 chambered rifle. However - .223 will kill the BG just as effectively as the 5.56 IF you do your job.

I'm sure a bullet guru will come in here with a lot of fancy graphs and KE tables but, IMO, get whatever you can afford the  most of and then practice enough with it to put your shots where they count.


in a self defense situation, it might be hard to make a good shot based on conditions, bad guy moving, dark, stress, ect.  

A FMJ will kill a deer but a soft point will do a better job, espically if the round isn't placed quite right.  In most self defense situations, you will be shooting well under 100 yards, mostly under 25 yards.  The POI between 75 gr tap (or other known good SD round) and cheap ammo (wolf even) won't hardly be noticed.  Keep your rifle zeroed in with your SD ammo and practice (alot) with cheap ammo.  You'll need maybe 3 mags of the good SD ammo.  You want to go with budget ammo when your life is on the line?  If I'm ever in that situation, I wouldn't care if I were shooting 10 dollar a round ammo, as long as it was going bang and preforming like it should on the bad guy.

Bottom line is that cost shouldn't be a factor in picking ammo that you will be protacting yourself with.  Buy the best, practice with the rest.


Link Posted: 1/24/2009 5:34:20 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/24/2009 9:41:24 AM EST
Black Hills blue box 75 gr BTHP. Should be much less expensive than 129/100.

The PPU 75 gr actually expanded like a soft point to about .53 in when I fired it into water. It settled at 28 inches, but hell if I know how to interpret that.





Link Posted: 1/24/2009 10:16:39 AM EST
Quit squandering money on tacticool rounds.  A buck and a quarter a bang?  You need the premium stuff for CCW pistol but for AR just get you some XM193 or Q3131. They are both 5.56 velocity.   Hit gangsters in the breadbasket, they fall.
Link Posted: 1/24/2009 10:47:52 AM EST
Most of my SD / SHTF ammo is XM193. Based on everything I've read, that's what would be the optimal choice for use in 95% of the situations that would be expected in the unlikely event that everything goes bad.

However, I do some rounds of green tipped stuff on hand in case I need to shoot through something and plan on picking up some rounds of the PRVI 75 gr stuff in case there is the need to really reach out and touch someone.

PRVI is good stuff, plain and simple. I have not seen any reason to choose TAP over it. However, as others have said, it's much more important to choose the proper ammo type and to be able to hit what you aim at. Match the tool to the job.
Link Posted: 1/24/2009 2:47:26 PM EST
That up-font money will set you up to reload ammo as good or better than any you can buy for any amount of money.

Funny how ammo that has been supposedly designed to kill bipedal predators has earned the name "tacticool".



"Bottom line is that cost shouldn't be a factor in picking ammo that you will be protacting yourself with. Buy the best, practice with the rest. "

Or reload, and practice with the ammo you face SHTF with.  Easy.
Link Posted: 1/24/2009 4:08:35 PM EST
Quoted:
Buy the best, practice with the rest.


From what I've read here, seems alot of folks believe "practice with what you plan to use"...

Seems to make more sense than zeroing your rifle for ammo you don't even practice with.
Link Posted: 1/24/2009 4:25:14 PM EST
Quoted:
Quoted:
Buy the best, practice with the rest.


From what I've read here, seems alot of folks believe "practice with what you plan to use"...

Seems to make more sense than zeroing your rifle for ammo you don't even practice with.


Practicing with plinking ammo is not the same as zeroing with the premium stuff.  Muscle memory and sight picture are easy to practice with plinking ammo.  For the first 200 yards, don't most 5.56 rounds fly about the same?  There may be up to 1" of variance, but that is nothing in a combat situation.  As a sniper shooting 500 yads or more, that 1" will play an important role...but shooting at targets less than 200 yards away will not cause much variance in the overall point of impact.  

You can go to Hornady's website and look at the ballistic flight data for their TAP FPD ammo.  The 55gr, 60gr and 75gr loads all fly differently, but there is not much difference in how they fly until about 300 yards.  After 300 yards, there is more than 1" difference in the point of impact.

I suspect that for most 223 and 5.56 ammo, the ballistics are close enough to be negligible for anyone who is not a competitive shooter.  For defensive purposes, you can zero your sights to work with your defensice load, and then plink with something else, and you would not notice too much difference on the point of impact out to 200 yards or so.
Link Posted: 1/24/2009 4:43:57 PM EST
Quoted:
Practicing with plinking ammo is not the same as zeroing with the premium stuff.  Muscle memory and sight picture are easy to practice with plinking ammo.  For the first 200 yards, don't most 5.56 rounds fly about the same?  There may be up to 1" of variance, but that is nothing in a combat situation.  As a sniper shooting 500 yads or more, that 1" will play an important role...but shooting at targets less than 200 yards away will not cause much variance in the overall point of impact.  

You can go to Hornady's website and look at the ballistic flight data for their TAP FPD ammo.  The 55gr, 60gr and 75gr loads all fly differently, but there is not much difference in how they fly until about 300 yards.  After 300 yards, there is more than 1" difference in the point of impact.

I suspect that for most 223 and 5.56 ammo, the ballistics are close enough to be negligible for anyone who is not a competitive shooter.  For defensive purposes, you can zero your sights to work with your defensice load, and then plink with something else, and you would not notice too much difference on the point of impact out to 200 yards or so.


Fair enough... thanks for responding.  
Link Posted: 1/24/2009 4:49:45 PM EST
If your budget and ammo availability allow you to practice with the good stuff that's great.  But, if you can fire almost twice as much cheap stuff and get that much more practice pulling the trigger and sending a projectile down range, what's the harm?  I don't have a .22 conversion but would do it just to shoot very cheap and get more familiar with my weapon.

For SHTF, if it's good enough for our troops then m193 and m855 are good enough for me.
Link Posted: 1/24/2009 5:26:08 PM EST
For those folks who think the 55 gr M193 FMJ is a great 5.56 mm load for self-defense, the following quote was written by Dr. Martin Fackler, the man who has done more research on the M193 than anyone else on this planet:

 
“In 1980, I treated a soldier shot accidentally with an M16 M193 bullet from a distance of about ten feet.  The bullet entered his left thigh and traveled obliquely upward.  It exited after passing through about 11 inches of muscle.  The man walked in to my clinic with no limp whatsoever:  the entrance and exit holes were about 4 mm across, and punctate.  X-ray films showed intact bones, no bullet fragments, and no evidence of significant tissue disruption caused by the bullet’s temporary cavity.  The bullet path passed well lateral to the femoral vessels.  He was back on duty in a few days.  Devastating?  Hardly.  The wound profile of the M193 bullet (page 29 of the Emergency War Surgery—NATO Handbook, GPO, Washington, D.C., 1988) shows that most often the bullet travels about five inches through flesh before beginning significant yaw.    But about 15% of the time, it travels much farther than that before yawing—in which case it causes even milder wounds, if it missed bones, guts, lung, and major blood vessels.  In my experience and research, at least as many M16 users in Vietnam concluded that it produced unacceptably minimal, rather than “massive”, wounds.  After viewing the wound profile, recall that the Vietnamese were small people, and generally very slim.  Many M16 bullets passed through their torsos traveling mostly point forward, and caused minimal damage.  Most shots piercing an extremity, even in the heavier-built Americans, unless they hit bone, caused no more damage than a 22 caliber rimfire bullet.”

Fackler, ML:  “Literature Review”.  Wound Ballistics Review; 5(2):40, Fall 2001
Link Posted: 1/24/2009 6:07:49 PM EST
Self defense is different from SHTF.  Self defense means you've got an intruder in your home and you need the absolute best for about 5-10 rounds MAX.  Therefore, you don't need to buy hundreds of rounds.  Instead, fill 2 magazines, practice with the first one and keep the second one handy in your safe.  This is what I did with my shotgun.  I have TAP buckshot ready to go.  I ran 10 shells through it to know what to expect and kept the other 5 in my safe.  I will never shoot them unless it is life or death.

SHTF is different, You're talking about the breakdown of society and self defense means fending for yourself.  In this case, absolute best isn't needed.  Good, reliable quality with good reliable accuracy is what's needed.

I'm going to get a lot of flak for saying this, but Wolf could be SHTF ammo if your rifle runs it flawlessly like mine.  While I keep Prvi in bandoleers, I would not hesitate in loading Wolf if needed.
Link Posted: 1/24/2009 6:46:47 PM EST
Quoted:
For those folks who think the 55 gr M193 FMJ is a great 5.56 mm load for self-defense, the following quote was written by Dr. Martin Fackler, the man who has done more research on the M193 than anyone else on this planet:


So is the moral of the story here that M193 sucks, or that shot placement is key?

BTW, any story that says someone was shot in the leg, had 11" of damaged muscle, and walked "with no limp whatsoever" is HIGHLY suspect, and gives me the impression that the story is most likely a load of bullshit.

Link Posted: 1/24/2009 6:52:15 PM EST
Skip the pricey specialty ammo.  At self defense ranges, both M193 and M855/SS109 will fragment reliably.
Link Posted: 1/24/2009 9:38:02 PM EST
Quoted:
Self defense is different from SHTF.  Self defense means you've got an intruder in your home and you need the absolute best for about 5-10 rounds MAX.  Therefore, you don't need to buy hundreds of rounds.  Instead, fill 2 magazines, practice with the first one and keep the second one handy in your safe.  This is what I did with my shotgun.  I have TAP buckshot ready to go.  I ran 10 shells through it to know what to expect and kept the other 5 in my safe.  I will never shoot them unless it is life or death.

SHTF is different, You're talking about the breakdown of society and self defense means fending for yourself.  In this case, absolute best isn't needed.  Good, reliable quality with good reliable accuracy is what's needed.

I'm going to get a lot of flak for saying this, but Wolf could be SHTF ammo if your rifle runs it flawlessly like mine.  While I keep Prvi in bandoleers, I would not hesitate in loading Wolf if needed.


Which is why I can't understand anyone advocating Wolf or other fecal matter as a SHTF stock.   While not the "absolute best", 50 rounds of anything made here is worth at least one virgin.

Shit has already hit the fan when we argue about what foreign made cock-sucking-shit-junk-ass-ammo is best for SHTF here.

ETA:  Your safe is not going with you when SHTF.  Your "speshul" magazine means zip-point-shit. When it all comes apart, what you have is what you have.  Why not have the good stuff all the time?  Makes it very simple.  Pick a round.  Buy some, make some, whatever.  Shoot it, plink, practice, train.
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 5:41:50 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 11:53:12 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 12:57:41 PM EST
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For those folks who think the 55 gr M193 FMJ is a great 5.56 mm load for self-defense, the following quote was written by Dr. Martin Fackler, the man who has done more research on the M193 than anyone else on this planet:
So is the moral of the story here that M193 sucks, or that shot placement is key?

BTW, any story that says someone was shot in the leg, had 11" of damaged muscle, and walked "with no limp whatsoever" is HIGHLY suspect, and gives me the impression that the story is most likely a load of bullshit.
DocGKR is not known for passing along bullshit. Please consider the source before casting that kind of comment around.

That story came from Dr. Fackler himself, so it's certainly not BS.
 




However, one case 29 years ago should not be taken as conclusive proof either.
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 1:51:45 PM EST
"However, one case 29 years ago should not be taken as conclusive proof either."


That would be true if it was only one case, but Dr. Fackler is only using the single incident to illuminate a greater pattern associated with M193.  Keep in mind that he treated hundreds of wounds from both M16's and AK's while a trauma surgeon in Viet Nam, along with reviewing numerous additional ones while Director of the Army Wound Ballistic Research Lab.  He clearly states in the article that inconsistent terminal performance is endemic to M193:

"In my experience and research, at least as many M16 users in Vietnam concluded that it produced unacceptably minimal, rather than “massive”, wounds. After viewing the wound profile, recall that the Vietnamese were small people, and generally very slim. Many M16 bullets passed through their torsos traveling mostly point forward, and caused minimal damage. Most shots piercing an extremity, even in the heavier-built Americans, unless they hit bone, caused no more damage than a 22 caliber rimfire bullet."


As I have stated numerous times previously, as long as you know what your weapon and ammo can realistically accomplish, it is all just a matter of training and shot placement. I would much rather go into battle with a guy who practices 15,000 rounds a year using generic 55 gr FMJ out of his old M16A1 than with some guy that has the latest state-of-the-art ammo and rifle, but only shoots 500 rounds a year.
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 2:11:17 PM EST
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For those folks who think the 55 gr M193 FMJ is a great 5.56 mm load for self-defense, the following quote was written by Dr. Martin Fackler, the man who has done more research on the M193 than anyone else on this planet:
So is the moral of the story here that M193 sucks, or that shot placement is key?

BTW, any story that says someone was shot in the leg, had 11" of damaged muscle, and walked "with no limp whatsoever" is HIGHLY suspect, and gives me the impression that the story is most likely a load of bullshit.
DocGKR is not known for passing along bullshit. Please consider the source before casting that kind of comment around.

That story came from Dr. Fackler himself, so it's certainly not BS.
 




However, one case 29 years ago should not be taken as conclusive proof either.



True, which is why most of us here base our decisions on verifiable, reproducible, scientific testing which has consistently proven the terminal ballistic superiority of heavy OTM rounds compared to M193 and M855; and just so happens to support Dr Fackler’s statement.


This . . .









M855/M193 15% of the time.



M193



. . . verus this.


75 grain TAP

















Link Posted: 1/25/2009 4:48:18 PM EST
The overlay of the two M855 rounds on the 3rd picture (labeled M855) is not right.  They show the rounds almost completely penetrating before fragmenting or tumbling, but in the picture above that it shows those rounds beginning to fragment and tumble by 10 cm.
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 5:29:08 PM EST
Quoted:
DocGKR is not known for passing along bullshit. Please consider the source before casting that kind of comment around.


I don't care if it's written in the Bible and Jesus said it. To say that someone can be shot in the leg, suffer from 11" of damaged leg muscle, and walk with "no limp whatsoever" is a clear case of hyperbole, which casts the rest of the account into question.

I don't dispute hard evidence, but when it comes to debates about ammunition, so much of it is tainted by opinion, that one must be able to separate the truth from the nonsense. This comment was PURE nonsense

So, yeah, about that shot placement...
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 5:29:49 PM EST
Quoted:
The overlay of the two M855 rounds on the 3rd picture (labeled M855) is not right.  They show the rounds almost completely penetrating before fragmenting or tumbling, but in the picture above that it shows those rounds beginning to fragment and tumble by 10 cm.


Yes, it is right.  They are demonstrating the 15% of the time that the rounds don't begin to yaw for close to 20 cm and thus the unreliability of M855 and M193.

Link Posted: 1/25/2009 5:51:17 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 6:01:12 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 6:19:46 PM EST
Hornady TAP 5.56 T2 75gr

[/thread]
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 10:39:49 PM EST
Quoted:
OK - so on one hand we have:

Dr. Martin Fackler, Colonel US Army (ret.), former director of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory of the Letterman Army Institute of Research, combat surgeon in Vietnam, founder of the IWBA.

On the other hand, we have "Deadmeat99", a person without any credentials whatsoever calling a case study by Dr. Fackler "PURE nonsense".


So is trying to apply common sense to an anecdotal, hyperbole filled story frowned upon in the Ammunition forum? The fact that people here are being led to believe that certain ammunition is worthless based on ONE questionable story makes me wonder about the value of the rest of the advice given here.

If you want to worship on the alter of Fackler and his 30 year old studies, go right ahead, but to preach it as some kind of gospel when even a novice can point out it's flaws is somewhat amusing.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:22:01 AM EST
Quoted:
Quoted:
OK - so on one hand we have:

Dr. Martin Fackler, Colonel US Army (ret.), former director of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory of the Letterman Army Institute of Research, combat surgeon in Vietnam, founder of the IWBA.

On the other hand, we have "Deadmeat99", a person without any credentials whatsoever calling a case study by Dr. Fackler "PURE nonsense".


So is trying to apply common sense to an anecdotal, hyperbole filled story frowned upon in the Ammunition forum? The fact that people here are being led to believe that certain ammunition is worthless based on ONE questionable story makes me wonder about the value of the rest of the advice given here.

If you want to worship on the alter of Fackler and his 30 year old studies, go right ahead, but to preach it as some kind of gospel when even a novice can point out it's flaws is somewhat amusing.




I find it difficult to believe that, after using the 5.56 as the main battle round for 40 plus years, if it was really as ineffective as some say, there wouldn't have been a bigger outcry against it. Yes, I know that there are some vocal opponents, but it's carried the U.S. through an awful lot.

Link Posted: 1/26/2009 4:06:22 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 5:49:41 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 5:51:59 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 9:00:31 AM EST
Quoted:
Quoted:

So is trying to apply common sense to an anecdotal, hyperbole filled story frowned upon in the Ammunition forum? The fact that people here are being led to believe that certain ammunition is worthless based on ONE questionable story makes me wonder about the value of the rest of the advice given here.

If you want to worship on the alter of Fackler and his 30 year old studies, go right ahead, but to preach it as some kind of gospel when even a novice can point out it's flaws is somewhat amusing.

Please read my post above for starters.

The fact that you assume that there's been no additional studies done on M193/M855 in the previous 30 years is wrong. It's precisely the fact that more problematic data has surfaced that's made DocGKR post what he has. Are you aware of the fleet yaw study, for example?
 



I'm willing to bet that at the time of your posting the answer was "No"...
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 10:03:43 AM EST
Quoted:

OK - so on one hand we have:

Dr. Martin Fackler, Colonel US Army (ret.), former director of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory of the Letterman Army Institute of Research, combat surgeon in Vietnam, founder of the IWBA.

On the other hand, we have "Deadmeat99", a person without any credentials whatsoever calling a case study by Dr. Fackler "PURE nonsense".




Oh GREAT!  Now I have to explain to my boss how my keyboard got so wet.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:04:41 PM EST
Getting back to the OP's question...  I'll share my personal perspective on ammo.  I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of ANY [bullet] in flight, from ANY firearm.  



Even simple .22LR's kill.  A simple Daisy Red Ryder BB Gun has killed - yes it was a bizarre fluke where the BB got into the victims bloodstream.  Nonetheless, the common denominator here is that the firearm / system WORKED.  



Rather than try to sell you on the merits of various projectile types, I'd suggest that you invest in a round that you KNOW will go bang RELIABLY.  My personal experience is that the Hornady TAP in 5.56 thus far has been favorable in that regard.  YMMV.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 6:24:47 PM EST
Quoted:
Black Hills blue box 75 gr BTHP. Should be much less expensive than 129/100.

The PPU 75 gr actually expanded like a soft point to about .53 in when I fired it into water. It settled at 28 inches, but hell if I know how to interpret that.

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n221/zeroedin/DSC01832.jpg

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n221/zeroedin/DSC01834.jpg

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n221/zeroedin/DSC01839.jpg


Thats pretty strange, the last guy who tested it showed that it broke in half and had alittle fragmentation

This round calls for more testing!

Perhaps some gel shots should be in order.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 6:34:35 PM EST
Quoted:
Quoted:

So is trying to apply common sense to an anecdotal, hyperbole filled story frowned upon in the Ammunition forum? The fact that people here are being led to believe that certain ammunition is worthless based on ONE questionable story makes me wonder about the value of the rest of the advice given here.

If you want to worship on the alter of Fackler and his 30 year old studies, go right ahead, but to preach it as some kind of gospel when even a novice can point out it's flaws is somewhat amusing.

Please read my post above for starters.

The fact that you assume that there's been no additional studies done on M193/M855 in the previous 30 years is wrong. It's precisely the fact that more problematic data has surfaced that's made DocGKR post what he has. Are you aware of the fleet yaw study, for example?
 


Is there a PDF of the fleet yaw effect out there?

I'd like to see about a hundred or so 5.56 gel shots plotted on a graph, with neck length plotted versus impact velocity and a best fit line drawn. As a matter of fact, with enough data points I bet you could make some interesting and somewhat useful graphs detailing retained weight and penetration for a particular round.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 7:45:47 PM EST
Well, the JSWB-IPT spent $6,000,000 in a 4 year study collecting data on 10,000 gel shots.  The data was fairly conclusive, especially regarding the issues associated with current M855, as well as M193.  You can read about some of the results at:  http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 10:10:53 PM EST
Quoted:
Well, the JSWB-IPT spent $6,000,000 in a 4 year study collecting data on 10,000 gel shots.  The data was fairly conclusive, especially regarding the issues associated with current M855, as well as M193.  You can read about some of the results at:  http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf




"More than 100 years later, it may be time for Congress and the President to re-evaluate the outmoded and archaic 1899 Hague Convention's prohibition against routine combat use of the standard deforming ammunition commonly used by LE personnel. The Hague Convention’s guidelines are no longer relevant for today’s urban battlefield with its close intermixing of innocent civilians and irregular combatants."



Yeah, I'm sure Obama will get right on that.
Link Posted: 1/27/2009 2:17:08 AM EST
I love to see newbs and ignorant trigger pullers take on the leading researches in a field in an intellectual debate.  The funny thing is, they dont even realise how it looks from the outside.  People cant look uphill I guess.
Top Top