AR Sponsor
Posted: 5/8/2023 12:05:55 AM EDT
|
After my test of the AAC/PSA 77SMK ammunition, I thought I'd share my test of the OTM version: The original test is here: https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR-15/Test-AAC-PSA-77-s-vs-Magtech-vs-mk262-vs-FGMM/16-777716/ Because of the pressure signs shown with my Wylde chambered upper in that test, for this I used a COLT 1/7" 5.56 NATO HBAR barrel with 968rds on it. TLDR: As usual the ammunition was of poor quality (nicks/dents etc) but shot ok. Since the ammunition was supposedly made "in house" by AAC, I examined that as well. The Bullets in particular showed a large Extreme Spread in weight. All testing was done with AAC 77OTM ammunition lot #SCL1CD121. I tore down 10 cartridges and examined them: All weights were found using a FX120i scale. -OAL: averaged out at 2.237" -Primer: brass colored, NOT staked or sealed. -Powder: measured on a Fx120i averaged 25.04 grains of an unknown "flattened" ball powder. -Bullet: NOT crimped or sealed but with cannelure. Length: averaged 0.9914" ES 0.007" (compared to 10 SMK at random of 0.976" and ES 0.006). Weight: averaged 77.14 grains BUT ES of 1.8gr (compared to 10 SMK at random of 76.94 and ES of 0.04grains). -Cases: the now empty and unfired cases averaged out at 95.03 grains. Which seem slightly heavy as they don't have a primer in them. (With the once fired cases/primer I used a beam scale and they averaged 98.58 grains). The Story: -All testing was done at 200yds at Colorado Rifle Club, Byers, CO. (Elevation approx 5210 ft). -All groups are 10 shots and then examined using the "On target" app to get precise measurements. -All groups shot off a bench with bags front/rear. -All groups shot with a Leupold mk4 on the free floated COLT 20" 1/7" 5.56 NATO HBAR barrel. -The uppers start clean and then after each 10 shot group, has the bore "snaked." The pace is steady: shoot one, dry fire one. -Conditions: Bright, breezy and 66F. Pictures: https://imgur.com/a/kieEJ2w Results: In order of shooting: Magtech 77: again shot the best: 2.801"total 1.338MOA AAC 77SMK: 4.230" total and 2.020MOA. AAC 77OTM: 3.128" total and 1.494MOA. Chronograph: Alpha chrony set up 15' from muzzle: -Magtech/CBC: 2734 fps Ave 116 ES 40.17 SD -AAC77SMK: 2701 fps Ave 61.16 ES 20.14 SD -AAC77OTM: 2672 fps Ave 60.99 ES 18.94 SD My thoughts: -It was breezy that day and I feel like the groups could have been better but they are what they are. -As cool as it was, with a Colt NATO 5.56 barrel, the primers showed slight flattening and since the AAC ammo doesn't like Wylde chambers, I'm not sure what to think of this ammo. -If you want sealed primers/bullets.......... don't buy this. -Both of the 77 offerings aren't going particularly fast if that bother you. -The bullet ES concerns me, at distance over 200yds........... you will see "flyers" over that. If someone can cut the bullets in half and accurately measure the jacket thickness, PM with your addy and I'll get them to you. I'd assume the shooters interested in the terminal ballistics of this ammo would like that. |
|
I almost broke my own rule... If the price seems too good to be true, it's because it is. AAC is a sponsor of GT's YouTube page and I know they run it. But unlike Sage, GT seems to always forget one major thing when "reviewing" something......accuracy test. There is probably a reason behind that. Is this stuff at least new or is it reman brass? |
|
Thank you for the data. I gotta say, given the price point, personally, I don't expect 100% FGMM quality . I expect it to go bang, and perform consistently. ( EDIT ... I am fairly certain I have the same Lot #, I will recheck later ) ... I checked, Lot # SCL1CC241, so not the same as yours. IMHO this a great alternative to a lot of 77gr loads... more of a working mans priced 77gr load, at 5.56 velocities, and priced as such. The first gel test I have seen looks promising ( SBR length barrel 11.5 ? I don't remember at the moment ) I can't help but wonder if the primer cup thickness are part of the reason the primers tend to look slightly flattened. I fired a bunch of the AAC 77gr OTM over the weekend , from a Krieger 20" , with a 223 Wylde Chamber, 1n7.7 twist. I had zero function issues, zero popped primers, accuracy was completely acceptable for it price point. Here is 35rds at 100yds. I was firing as fast as practical, Fire, back on target, fire, back on target.... etc ( while using a 10rd mag. )  The cases ( again , just from the AAC 77gr OTM )   For me, I consider this a great 77gr load for its price. 5.56 velocities, and respectable precision. IMHO, very good consistency in my 35rd group, no horrible fliers, and plenty of rounds through the same hole'ish ( you guys know what I mean ) So as mentioned, A good 5.56 77gr load , at a working mans price. FWIW, range conditions were horrible, and not making excuses, but the range was packed ( i had to wait for a bench for about 45 minutes ) , the guys on both sides of me had obnoxious brakes, my friend a few lanes down couldn't leave me alone... fix this fix that , and no way I was going to be able to use my chrono..... one of those days I couldn't get my mojo in full swing. Next time I am going during the week. Period. |
|
Quoted: I almost broke my own rule... If the price seems too good to be true, it's because it is. AAC is a sponsor of GT's YouTube page and I know they run it. But unlike Sage, GT seems to always forget one major thing when "reviewing" something......accuracy test. There is probably a reason behind that. Is this stuff at least new or is it reman brass? New brass, made by PSA / AAC. |
|
Quoted: Chronograph: Alpha chrony set up 15' from muzzle: -Magtech/CBC: 2734 fps Ave 116 ES 40.17 SD -AAC77SMK: 2701 fps Ave 61.16 ES 20.14 SD -AAC77OTM: 2672 fps Ave 60.99 ES 18.94 SD -As cool as it was, with a Colt NATO 5.56 barrel, the primers showed slight flattening and since the AAC ammo doesn't like Wylde chambers, I'm not sure what to think of this ammo. I’ve fired this ammo and the 77smk version in numerous 223 Wylde chambers without issue. Sub moa results in my AR’s and closer to sub half moa in my bolt guns. No popped primers or significant pressure signs. How does the Magtech typically shoot for you? I noticed that you brought up velocity SD/ES causing fliers or being noteworthy for the AAC, but didn’t really discuss the “control/baseline” ammo had std. dev/extreme spread that was nearly double the AAC, and the AAC ammo had twice as many rounds evaluated. I realize that the CBC 77’s are a thing of the past an no one is rushing to the stores to pick it up, but it just doesn’t read as an unbiased criticism of the AAC ammo. |
|
Quoted: AAC 75 grain data from member 5RWill fired from his mk12 Mod H : blown primers, excessive velocities and velocity extreme spread of 262 FPS. https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/attachments/img_7223-jpeg.8136467/ .... Quoted: Quoted: This stuff seems to be all over the place. AAC 75 grain data from member 5RWill fired from his mk12 Mod H : blown primers, excessive velocities and velocity extreme spread of 262 FPS. https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/attachments/img_7223-jpeg.8136467/ .... @Molon FYI it is my understanding the velocities are being addressed, and the testing of the current loads was well within NATO spec, so it might be a case of chamber issues, ? much like the old IMI being to close to the edge..... as well as SD's being tightened up. So the various popped primer issues aren't being ignored. Just sayin' I am very curious why I had no issues, and others barrels are having issues. Not saying the issues aren't happening to others, but I would have thought my Krieger with its "tight" Wylde chamber would have caused a popped primer. FWIW, my Lot # is one of the original "hot" Lots... I hope to chrono some of it this weekend. And , with so many threads about the AAC ammo, can you link to @5RWill 's thread ? I vaguely remember the first shot being the high velocity one, I would like to know if the bore had oil left in it ? And "maybe" that could be why the single high reading ? The randomness of popped primer issues is odd to me, especially considering a lot of the barrels had 5.56 chambers. And some of the popped primers were with a Suppressor. I measured the powder in the cases, it was an average of 26.15grs , and while that sounds high, I don't know what powder is being used. The equipment used to make / load the rounds doesn't leave meaningful room for errors. ( Which makes the issue even more confusing ) Maybe some Lot of a Mil-Spec powder ? I can't image a typical powder manufacturer could supply enough over the counter powder to meet PSA / AAC's needs. Anyway... I still have a lot of questions. But, at this point I truly want AAC to succeed, and I believe they will.... and this country needs another ammo and primer supplier, one that isn't in bed with the Gov. I don't think AAC is using us as a developmental tool, but as always, barrels can be different, and this proves it to me more then ever. Over my lifetime I have seen 4 factory loads produce popped primers... FC 262, Eagle Eye 308, The old Fed. Independence 55gr , and some Winc. / IMI made 55gr FMJ. and those rounds were all obviously over pressure in my chambers. Yet others used some of it routinely. Without issue, specifically the Independence stuff ... heck Buffman still seeks it out. Lol |
|
Quoted: It seems like the issues people had were all with early production lots. All of the reports with recent lots seem to have good velocities and SD numbers Fully agree. I am hoping my next order is a different Lot # ( Most likely ) I will Chrono some of both lots of the AAC 77gr OTM to compare. 5.56 Chamber LaRue 16" and 5.56 FN SS HF 20", and through the 20" Krieger Wylde. If time permits, I will try some other uppers with various manufacturers barrels. |
|
Quoted: @Molon FYI it is my understanding the velocities are being addressed, and the testing of the current loads was well within NATO spec, so it might be a case of chamber issues, ? much like the old IMI being to close to the edge..... as well as SD's being tightened up. So the various popped primer issues aren't being ignored. Just sayin' I am very curious why I had no issues, and others barrels are having issues. Not saying the issues aren't happening to others, but I would have thought my Krieger with its "tight" Wylde chamber would have caused a popped primer. FWIW, my Lot # is one of the original "hot" Lots... I hope to chrono some of it this weekend. And , with so many threads about the AAC ammo, can you link to @5RWill 's thread ? I vaguely remember the first shot being the high velocity one, I would like to know if the bore had oil left in it ? And "maybe" that could be why the single high reading ? The randomness of popped primer issues is odd to me, especially considering a lot of the barrels had 5.56 chambers. And some of the popped primers were with a Suppressor. I measured the powder in the cases, it was an average of 26.15grs , and while that sounds high, I don't know what powder is being used. The equipment used to make / load the rounds doesn't leave meaningful room for errors. ( Which makes the issue even more confusing ) Maybe some Lot of a Mil-Spec powder ? I can't image a typical powder manufacturer could supply enough over the counter powder to meet PSA / AAC's needs. Anyway... I still have a lot of questions. But, at this point I truly want AAC to succeed, and I believe they will.... and this country needs another ammo and primer supplier, one that isn't in bed with the Gov. I don't think AAC is using us as a developmental tool, but as always, barrels can be different, and this proves it to me more then ever. Over my lifetime I have seen 4 factory loads produce popped primers... FC 262, Eagle Eye 308, The old Fed. Independence 55gr , and some Winc. / IMI made 55gr FMJ. and those rounds were all obviously over pressure in my chambers. Yet others used some of it routinely. Without issue, specifically the Independence stuff ... heck Buffman still seeks it out. Lol Bore is dry. It's had 100s of rounds of frontier 62gr and some old 77gr Southwest I had laying around. Build is a straight PRI upper from the factory. 1:8 twist Douglas barrel with a 5.56 chamber. I've shot 80 rounds of the 75gr AAC and that's of the 300 I bought I think back in February and had three blown primers in those two days. So Idk, I really want this stuff to work. I don't even care if it's slow because I can get tons of range time with a 77gr at 2600-2650fps at 50c a round and if I want to get serious I'll jump on my progressive with 77gr SMK and Staball match, but these results seem to vary wildly between users which for such a standardized cartridge (the most standardized cartridge one could argue) something is falling through QC somewhere. |
|
@mcantu: I bought the ammo mid-April. After that I don't know if it is/was a "recent lot." But then it came out the beginning of April, so how much of a spread of lots can there be? @Alpha: As Bfoosh points out, the brass appears to be newly made by AAC. @bfoosh: I can certainly respect why some would like this ammo, we all have different expectations and uses. I'm just posting the information as I tested it. For example: Some people don't reload and instead leave the brass, so for them would the dents/dings matter? Some people demand sealed ammo, in that case, this would be a no go. "....I can't help but wonder if the primer cup thickness are part of the reason the primers tend to look slightly flattened........." I wondered this too........... but I have no way of measuring that reliably. But I am also concerned about the inconsistencies of it all. For me and my uses, I wouldn't even bother with this load (the OTM bullet) and instead use the 77SMK stuff........... atleast the bullet quality would be there. |
|
Quoted: I’ve fired this ammo and the 77smk version in numerous 223 Wylde chambers without issue. Sub moa results in my AR’s and closer to sub half moa in my bolt guns. No popped primers or significant pressure signs. How does the Magtech typically shoot for you? I noticed that you brought up velocity SD/ES causing fliers or being noteworthy for the AAC, but didn’t really discuss the “control/baseline” ammo had std. dev/extreme spread that was nearly double the AAC, and the AAC ammo had twice as many rounds evaluated. I realize that the CBC 77’s are a thing of the past an no one is rushing to the stores to pick it up, but it just doesn’t read as an unbiased criticism of the AAC ammo. Quoted: Quoted: Chronograph: Alpha chrony set up 15' from muzzle: -Magtech/CBC: 2734 fps Ave 116 ES 40.17 SD -AAC77SMK: 2701 fps Ave 61.16 ES 20.14 SD -AAC77OTM: 2672 fps Ave 60.99 ES 18.94 SD -As cool as it was, with a Colt NATO 5.56 barrel, the primers showed slight flattening and since the AAC ammo doesn't like Wylde chambers, I'm not sure what to think of this ammo. I’ve fired this ammo and the 77smk version in numerous 223 Wylde chambers without issue. Sub moa results in my AR’s and closer to sub half moa in my bolt guns. No popped primers or significant pressure signs. How does the Magtech typically shoot for you? I noticed that you brought up velocity SD/ES causing fliers or being noteworthy for the AAC, but didn’t really discuss the “control/baseline” ammo had std. dev/extreme spread that was nearly double the AAC, and the AAC ammo had twice as many rounds evaluated. I realize that the CBC 77’s are a thing of the past an no one is rushing to the stores to pick it up, but it just doesn’t read as an unbiased criticism of the AAC ammo. Before I answer your questions, I've got one for you. Are you sponsored by AAC/PSA? |
|
Quoted: But I am also concerned about the inconsistencies of it all. For me and my uses, I wouldn't even bother with this load (the OTM bullet) and instead use the 77SMK stuff........... atleast the bullet quality would be there. I'm confused. Your accuracy, velocity, and SD numbers all look good. Why would you dismiss it outright? |
|
Quoted: Bore is dry. It's had 100s of rounds of frontier 62gr and some old 77gr Southwest I had laying around. Build is a straight PRI upper from the factory. 1:8 twist Douglas barrel with a 5.56 chamber. I've shot 80 rounds of the 75gr AAC and that's of the 300 I bought I think back in February and had three blown primers in those two days. So Idk, I really want this stuff to work. I don't even care if it's slow because I can get tons of range time with a 77gr at 2600-2650fps at 50c a round and if I want to get serious I'll jump on my progressive with 77gr SMK and Staball match, but these results seem to vary wildly between users which for such a standardized cartridge (the most standardized cartridge one could argue) something is falling through QC somewhere. Thank You for your answers. I want it to work for the same reasons you mentioned. Twice the range time , compared to other loads. I have another batch coming soon. I will compare the previous Lot to the "new" Lot coming. Charge weights, bullet weights... etc. I wish I knew how to read the "Lot # 's "code" |
|
Quoted: @mcantu: I bought the ammo mid-April. After that I don't know if it is/was a "recent lot." But then it came out the beginning of April, so how much of a spread of lots can there be? @Alpha: As Bfoosh points out, the brass appears to be newly made by AAC. @bfoosh: I can certainly respect why some would like this ammo, we all have different expectations and uses. I'm just posting the information as I tested it. For example: Some people don't reload and instead leave the brass, so for them would the dents/dings matter? Some people demand sealed ammo, in that case, this would be a no go. "....I can't help but wonder if the primer cup thickness are part of the reason the primers tend to look slightly flattened........." I wondered this too........... but I have no way of measuring that reliably. But I am also concerned about the inconsistencies of it all. For me and my uses, I wouldn't even bother with this load (the OTM bullet) and instead use the 77SMK stuff........... atleast the bullet quality would be there. And Thank You for your answers. The data will certainly help me when my new "Lot" shows up and compare the various lot's. It is interesting that your charge weight is lower then my Lot's, and your velocities seem to be about what most would expect. I'd bet the inconsistencies will dwindle away. The charge weight difference is an example to me. And I fully appreciate the reloading aspect v. people throwing away / leaving the brass. Have you tried reloading any of the brass ? FWIW, the AAC 77gr OTM bullet has shown good Ballistic Gel performance out of a SBR. |
|
Cutting and pasting most of my post from another post here., and it is getting late... but I thought you would be interested. I made it to the range today myself. I was able to chrono some of the AAC 77gr OTM with the current factory charge weight of 24.5gr of powder, Lot #SCL1CD241 Temp reached 89 degrees, the ammo, rifle and me was out of direct sunlight, wind was gusting and blowing from 3 o'clock to 9 o'clock at about 18mph. I wasn't terribly worried about that wind, since my main focus was on velocities and function. EDIT to add... Older Pro Chrono used. I used some .223 GECO 55gr FMJ, to establish a base line velocity and base line "accuracy" GECO was 3178fps, from the Krieger... compared to the years ago 3128fps from the FN CHF 5.56 chamber I used in chrono testing years ago . The 20" Krieger is certainly a "tighter" bore or chamber ( Wylde Chamber 7.7n1 twist )... I chrono'd some 2014 CBC 5.56 77gr and some 2014 IMI 5.56 77gr as a comparison to the AAC 77gr OTM. The CBC 5.56 77gr was doing an average of 2873fps out of the Krieger, previous testing of the same lot of 2014 CBC 77gr from a FN CHF 20" 5.56 chamber was an average of 2752fps. The IMI 5.56 77gr load was doing max 2930fps ! out of the Krieger barrel... and previous testing from the FN CHF 20" 5.56 chamber was 2810fps and was the fastest from that big'ol test. ( FWIW, and from years ago, the BH 2014 Mk262 load was doing Av. 2675 , ES 82 out of the same previous testing with that FN CHF barrel ) The AAC 5.56 77gr averaged 2765fps. SD of 14 ( ... I really need a chrono that I can have the readings at the finger tips ) and an ES of 39. Groups were good, considering the gusting wind. BEST 5rds at .67" and 1.1" for 10rds at 100yds. Again... gusting winds sideways against me, so while I was trying to be consistent... the wind typically challenged me. I know I could have done better without the wind. Lol ... I need to learn how to account for the wind better. Note.. two different style targets, and two different size orange stickies. And first photo taken at the range, next at home.   IMHO, dropping the charge weight, away from a hot self defense load to a moderate 5.56 77gr load is a wise decision, way to many tight barrels and chambers out there. I had zero function issues, and zero popped primers, fired brass had no noticable ejector swipes or ejector claw marks. I will test a 16" LaRue OEM upper next time for velocities and accuracy. And that same FN 20" 5.56 CHF barrel from the previous ( years ago chrono test ) Molon's "Quarter MOA" target was also used. Considering the wind, and I was getting tired, I think the AAC 5.56 77gr OTM did pretty darned good. Next time , I will try the "Quarter MOA" first. And,I will be buying more of this ammo again. 
|
|
Quoted: I'm confused. Your accuracy, velocity, and SD numbers all look good. Why would you dismiss it outright? Quoted: Quoted: But I am also concerned about the inconsistencies of it all. For me and my uses, I wouldn't even bother with this load (the OTM bullet) and instead use the 77SMK stuff........... atleast the bullet quality would be there. I'm confused. Your accuracy, velocity, and SD numbers all look good. Why would you dismiss it outright? For me.......... I use (or would consider using) this type of ammo for shooting further out to maybe 600yds. So that extreme spread of the bullet weight concerns me. (I would definitely start seeing "flyers" over that). The 77SMK uses the Sierra bullet I know and doesn't have near the ES as the in house made stuff. My reloads run about 2750 (20"bl) and so the I'm not worried about the "slow speed" of these. |
|
@bfoosh: Thanks for the detailed info as well. The more the better. To be blunt: I have no interest in testing/reloading the brass further. I dont have the time and the quality isn't there. I, Will, though run a test thru one of my Krieger SR upper and post it here. (The CBC as well). I have maybe 10-20 of each left......... I do have a question for you: You talk about this being "5.56" ammo.............. I know it's the phrase-o-the-day to talk about 223 vs 5.56........ but what makes you call it that? It's not running particularly hot.............. so? |
|
Quoted: @bfoosh: ... I do have a question for you: You talk about this being "5.56" ammo.............. I know it's the phrase-o-the-day to talk about 223 vs 5.56........ but what makes you call it that? .... PSA link |
|
Quoted: For me.......... I use (or would consider using) this type of ammo for shooting further out to maybe 600yds. So that extreme spread of the bullet weight concerns me. (I would definitely start seeing "flyers" over that). Extreme spread in velocity, wind deflection or varying BC would have more effect than a few tenths of a grain variance in the bullet weight. Have you tested this or is it just an assumption? I tested this theory out with eld bullets when I was shooting F-TR and saw no measurable difference in the overall precision or POI at 600yds. Granted the extreme spread of weights was 1.2gr, but it’s not far off from what you observed. |
|
How does the Magtech typically shoot for you? I noticed that you brought up velocity SD/ES causing fliers or being noteworthy for the AAC, but didn’t really discuss the “control/baseline” ammo had std. dev/extreme spread that was nearly double the AAC, and the AAC ammo had twice as many rounds evaluated. I realize that the CBC 77’s are a thing of the past an no one is rushing to the stores to pick it up, but it just doesn’t read as an unbiased criticism of the AAC ammo. Asking again, as it seems to be overlooked, despite me replying to your question. |
|
Quoted: @bfoosh: I do have a question for you: You talk about this being "5.56" ammo.............. I know it's the phrase-o-the-day to talk about 223 vs 5.56........ but what makes you call it that? It's not running particularly hot.............. so? @TGH456E I try to be specific to the name / marking on the box of any factory ammo , to avoid confusion, for anyone not as well "versed" as us Gunny folk. Sometimes it can be repetitive, or monotonous, but then there is little error on what specific ammo I am talking about. Also, because of various comments , on various forums, so not just yours, concerning some peoples pressure signs... ( and no offense and not trying to be a smart ass at all , but you worded it very well. ) "Because of the pressure signs shown with my Wylde chambered upper in that test, for this I used a COLT 1/7" 5.56 NATO HBAR barrel " And this... " Since I saw alot of flattened primers in the WOA upper yesterday, I thought I'd use a NATO chamber and get velocities. " I wonder if most people just shrug that important info off... or maybe just read past it. While there seems to be a fair amount of people that think 5.56 and .223 are the "same", most of us know the chamber differences do matter. My Krieger pointed that out to me again. I also guess, I try to nudge people ( other folks reading the thread ) into realizing with some 5.56 ammo , a USGI / NATO 5.56 chamber it would be prudent to err on the side of caution. FWIW, I've ordered some more of the various "5.56" loads from AAC / PSA again, I am curious if charge weights are more moderate "across the board". I also base the "5.56" comments on a years ago chrono test I did on various .223 and 5.56 factory ammo, all weights and a bunch of brands. A "general" trend was the .223 77gr loads were around 2500ish +- 50fps, while the 5.56 77gr loads were 2750-2850ish fps ( "slow" 20" barrel ) , So that places the AAC 77gr OTM right in the 5.56 zone to me. Interestingly, the .223 77gr FGMM load was 2411fps ( slowest out of all .223 and 5.56 I tested ) and the fastest was IMI 77gr 5.56 ..2810fps , Hornady Superformance 75gr 5.56... 2840fps, and CBC 77gr 5.56 2752fps I hope that helps answer your question. |
AR Sponsor