Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 6/3/2005 12:27:23 PM EDT
I recently found a source for Winchester M855 (White Box) and purchased 600 of what I thought were new rounds. When I opened them, they looked like they had been through alot (green tips nearly worn off, pin dings on the primers, dust on the necks, small dents on the casings). I asked the seller and they agreed that they looked a bit beat up, so they contacted their source at Winchester who swore they were new. The boxes they came in are in pristine condition, but the rounds themselves are not.
Has anyone else seen something like this?
Link Posted: 6/4/2005 2:16:51 AM EDT
Not based on definitive info, only a guess ...

Winchester Olin and Israeli Military Industries were both given contracts several months ago for 5.56 ammo by our DoD because Lake City (run by Federal for Uncle Sam) can't meet its needs in spite of added production lines and running 24x7. You may have pre-Mil-inspection QC rejects from Winchester's lines, just like the XM193 and XM855 Federal has made available to the civie market.
Link Posted: 6/4/2005 4:51:57 AM EDT
Thanks for the reply. I suppose that could be the case. Also, these rounds are dated '05 on the rim, but they look like their from the 70's. Any explanation for the pin dings on almost all the primers?
Link Posted: 6/4/2005 4:56:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By safetyhit:
Thanks for the reply. I suppose that could be the case. Also, these rounds are dated '05 on the rim, but they look like their from the 70's. Any explanation for the pin dings on almost all the primers?



its part of the manufacturing process.
Link Posted: 6/4/2005 5:52:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By safetyhit:
Thanks for the reply. I suppose that could be the case. Also, these rounds are dated '05 on the rim, but they look like their from the 70's. Any explanation for the pin dings on almost all the primers?



Pin dings on the primers should not be a problem. Military-grade primers are harder than commercial ones. They have to be, especially since the AR15/M16 has a free-floating firing pin, and just chambering a round will put a ding on the primer because the firing pin will come forward when the bolt locks.

And dings on the cases are OK as long as the case wall integrity hasn't been compromised. Hard to describe the difference, kinda like the judge who said he couldn't define pornography, but knew it when he saw it. Just give them all a good look.

Dirty cases are OK too, they will look a lot worse after you fire them. As long as there isn't grunge thick enough on the case to keep the round from chambering, they'll be OK.
Link Posted: 6/4/2005 6:08:21 PM EDT
I understand how the pin comes forward when a round is chambered, but how do the primer dings get there if the round is not chambered?? These are supposed to be new bullets.
Link Posted: 6/5/2005 12:18:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By safetyhit:
I understand how the pin comes forward when a round is chambered, but how do the primer dings get there if the round is not chambered?? These are supposed to be new bullets.



Bullets have nothing to do with primers.
Link Posted: 6/5/2005 3:22:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By safetyhit:
I understand how the pin comes forward when a round is chambered, but how do the primer dings get there if the round is not chambered?? These are supposed to be new bullets.



Bullets have nothing to do with primers.



I am sure you know exactly what I meant, why bother with the wiseguy answer.
Link Posted: 6/5/2005 4:48:59 AM EDT
HI ya SAFETYHIT!
Military ammo has some Dings and Black specs from selant and looks yucky but its Okay!

As Far as the Primer Ding without being Chamberd has Got ME?
Send a 1 Round to Winchester and tell them about the cocern about the primer.


+I on JERKS I get it all the Time?

I asked for 7.62x39 FPS and was TOLD I was on a WRONG FORUM BY A MOD?????
There are Several AR15 that shoot the 7.62x39!!
And even Handgun ammo Question on the Forum!

I guess it makes them feel BIG!
Link Posted: 6/5/2005 5:11:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FMJ:
HI ya SAFETYHIT!
Military ammo has some Dings and Black specs from selant and looks yucky but its Okay!

As Far as the Primer Ding without being Chamberd has Got ME?
Send a 1 Round to Winchester and tell them about the cocern about the primer.


+I on JERKS I get it all the Time?

I asked for 7.62x39 FPS and was TOLD I was on a WRONG FORUM BY A MOD?????
There are Several AR15 that shoot the 7.62x39!!
And even Handgun ammo Question on the Forum!

I guess it makes them feel BIGhr


I know what you mean. I had a thread closed because I asked if Hakko was anywhere in Aimpoints league. I knew that Aimpoint was probably the better scope, but you never know what might be new and improved out there today. I also did't know Hakko and Tacpoint were the same, but I sure do now!!
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 2:55:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2005 3:03:12 PM EDT by steven1513]
Safetyhit, I found these photos online. The ammo looks pristine. Does this accurately represent what you have? Or did this seller cherry pick the best ones for the photo?



Link Posted: 8/11/2005 6:26:08 PM EDT
If it's rag ass looking, you know it's real military ammo, Cleatus!

Don't worry about it. You gots the good stuff.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 6:45:30 PM EDT
Most military ammo isn't as "pretty" as commercial ammo because the final polishing stage is usually eliminated. The mil reckons that it doesn't have to look good to be effective.

That being said when I bought my very first case of Lake City M193 I was pretty surprised at how the ammo looked. At first I thought it was actually remanufactured instead of new, until someone set me straight
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 6:54:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 7:02:26 PM EDT
Mil spec ammo will be dinged and "tarnished" looking at best. There is no need to polish said rounds as it does not affect reliability. It is most likely not 1st tier ammo as it is so new, IMI used to have 1st tier M855 ammo for sale here a couple of years ago and it looked no different.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 8:21:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2005 8:24:12 PM EDT by safetyhit]

Originally Posted By steven1513:
Safetyhit, I found these photos online. The ammo looks pristine. Does this accurately represent what you have? Or did this seller cherry pick the best ones for the photo?

ourworld.cs.com/SWad1513/winM855b.jpg ourworld.cs.com/SWad1513/winM855h.jpg

ourworld.cs.com/SWad1513/winM855f.jpg



Definitely cherry picked. The ones I have are generally much more beat up. Some do look okay, but they are the minority. I have fired 200-300 rounds of them with no problem, though.
By the way, that is exactly the same type of box that mine are in.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 6:37:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 6:56:02 AM EDT by steven1513]

Originally Posted By Troy:
The pics posted above are of QC-failed ammo, likely "Grade 3", but perhaps "Grade 2".
-Troy


Well if it is "Grade 3", the ~$300/k price is not justified (unless you really like cardboard boxes.) Several merchants offer "Grade 3" Federal XM855PD for ~$200/k.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 7:04:40 AM EDT
I've purchased the exact same type of ammo (Olin/ Winchester mfg.) from a local dealer at $5.50/20rds IIRC. If anybody wants any, i'll email you the address. I think he's only got 2 more cases left.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:17:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rob78:
I've purchased the exact same type of ammo (Olin/ Winchester mfg.) from a local dealer at $5.50/20rds IIRC. If anybody wants any, i'll email you the address. I think he's only got 2 more cases left.



$275 for a case of ammo w/o inlcuding shipping? Sorry thats a really bad deal.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:32:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By rob78:
I've purchased the exact same type of ammo (Olin/ Winchester mfg.) from a local dealer at $5.50/20rds IIRC. If anybody wants any, i'll email you the address. I think he's only got 2 more cases left.



$275 for a case of ammo w/o inlcuding shipping? Sorry thats a really bad deal.



Especially for M855. I don't know why anyone would pay any kind of premium for one of the least effective 5.56 rounds available. It must be the magic power of the green paint!
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:14:02 AM EDT
The price I quoted is per 20 rounds. Price per case would obviously be lower.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 5:31:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By markm:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By rob78:
I've purchased the exact same type of ammo (Olin/ Winchester mfg.) from a local dealer at $5.50/20rds IIRC. If anybody wants any, i'll email you the address. I think he's only got 2 more cases left.



$275 for a case of ammo w/o inlcuding shipping? Sorry thats a really bad deal.



Especially for M855. I don't know why anyone would pay any kind of premium for one of the least effective 5.56 rounds available. It must be the magic power of the green paint!



How can it be one of the least effective rounds available if it is standard military issue? I know the knocks (doesn't fragment well, may wobble in flight), but overall it must do something better than most other rounds, or it wouldn't be so popular.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:05:40 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:19:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Troy:

Originally Posted By safetyhit:
but overall it must do something better than most other rounds, or it wouldn't be so popular.



Yes. It gives improved range and longer-range penetration capabilities to the M249 SAW (compared to M193). That was M855's design goal, and that goal was achieved. It was NEVER designed or intended for use in the AR or from short barrels. The decision to adopt it for all 5.56 weapons was made later, by people with NO concern about its performance in standard (or short) rifles, primarily to simplify logistics.

It is "popular" in the civilian market primarily because it is the current standard military issue, not because of its performance, which most buyers know little about. It is just *assumed* to be good since the military uses it, despite years of test results and the known history of its adoption.

-Troy




I won't doubt what you say, Troy, but couldn't they have just stayed with the 55gr ball? Why take the time to switch if it wasn't preforming well in M16's?
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 10:26:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2005 1:05:56 PM EDT by steven1513]
Q:

Originally Posted By safetyhit:
Why take the time to switch if it wasn't preforming well in M16's?


A:

Originally Posted By Troy:
...primarily to simplify logistics.


Somewhere, a General got another star for this idea.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 4:48:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Troy:

It is "popular" in the civilian market primarily because it is the current standard military issue, not because of its performance, which most buyers know little about. It is just *assumed* to be good since the military uses it, despite years of test results and the known history of its adoption.




Exactamundo!

I wouldn't cry if I had to use this ammo, but It's one of my last choices.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:13:21 PM EDT
I suppose this could all be true, but what about the Israeli military? They are known to have stringent requirements. Don't they also use M855 as standard?
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:58:48 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 3:33:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Troy:
Israel is a NATO country, so, yes, they use the NATO-standard ammo in their military rifles. For their reservists, they often use M193, as many of those rifles are old 1:12 barrels.

-Troy



I know it is NATO spec, but so is XM193 and other ball 55gr as you mention. Assuming that is true, I still wonder why the M855 is prevalant if it is supposed to be infierior. Is the fragmentation really that bad? Most agree the 55gr shoots fine in a 1/7 twist.
Look, I have shot lots of both. I can shoot groups with IMI M855 as well as I can with any Lake City 55gr ball in a 14.5" Bushmaster. I'd rather have the round that has greater penetration. But that is only my opinion.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:17:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 3:35:07 PM EDT
Now I am really getting confused. Nothing is what it seems.
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 8:26:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2005 11:04:08 AM EDT by GoldtopDude]
I have some of each, but wish I had more M193-Q-----------------------!----------MT6601C -1/7 likes both for me!

GTD
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 5:30:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By safetyhit:
I'd rather have the round that has greater penetration. But that is only my opinion.



That great penetration was a big ass ache for some of the soldiers in Somalia. If you READ the accounts of the incident, you'll see that some of the SAW gunners as well as some of the M16 shooters were often frustrated at having to take follow up shots. They would score solid hits on the thinly built Somalians, yet the would have to fire follow up bursts or shots to put the enemy down for good.

The M855 zipped right through the enemy much of the time with no Fragmentation. I've always wondered what the reports would have been had all of the 5.56 fired in that battle been M193 instead.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 6:05:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By safetyhit:
Now I am really getting confused. Nothing is what it seems.



M193 is indeed milspec. It just was never NATO Spec. Back in the days when we had M-16A1's, many of the NATO nations were armed with FAL's and H&K .308 weapons. By the time they started transitioning to 5.56mm, the SS109 bullet had come along and that's what they all went to. That explains why many foreign nations don't use the green paint on the tip of their SS109 bullets. It was the first 5.56mm load they had used, therefore they weren't concerned about it getting mixed up with M193.

Troy mentioned the XM193 getting loaded into cases intended for M855. The XM193 is still loaded to milspec velocities. It's just that the NATO stamp on the cartridges is meaningless, being M193 was never a NATO standard. They use M855 brass for the simple reason that it's cheaper and easier to do. I mean why produce two types of brass when one type will work just fine?
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 3:56:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By markm:

Originally Posted By safetyhit:
I'd rather have the round that has greater penetration. But that is only my opinion.



That great penetration was a big ass ache for some of the soldiers in Somalia. If you READ the accounts of the incident, you'll see that some of the SAW gunners as well as some of the M16 shooters were often frustrated at having to take follow up shots. They would score solid hits on the thinly built Somalians, yet the would have to fire follow up bursts or shots to put the enemy down for good.

The M855 zipped right through the enemy much of the time with no Fragmentation. I've always wondered what the reports would have been had all of the 5.56 fired in that battle been M193 instead.



I have read this, and I am sure it is valid to a degree. I say that because the somali's were so thin, as you noted, but most men are not built like that. Also, often you will have to engage a target who is attempting to utilize his own cover. For that possibility, as well as an open shot, I'd rather have the penetrator.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 4:00:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:

Originally Posted By safetyhit:
Now I am really getting confused. Nothing is what it seems.



M193 is indeed milspec. It just was never NATO Spec. Back in the days when we had M-16A1's, many of the NATO nations were armed with FAL's and H&K .308 weapons. By the time they started transitioning to 5.56mm, the SS109 bullet had come along and that's what they all went to. That explains why many foreign nations don't use the green paint on the tip of their SS109 bullets. It was the first 5.56mm load they had used, therefore they weren't concerned about it getting mixed up with M193.

Troy mentioned the XM193 getting loaded into cases intended for M855. The XM193 is still loaded to milspec velocities. It's just that the NATO stamp on the cartridges is meaningless, being M193 was never a NATO standard. They use M855 brass for the simple reason that it's cheaper and easier to do. I mean why produce two types of brass when one type will work just fine?



Since you and Troy both say the same thing, I believe it is true. I had no idea of that, though. As long as it is mil spec, I guess it doesn't matter.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 10:05:56 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 9:42:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/20/2005 9:46:36 PM EDT by steven1513]

Originally Posted By Troy:
You need to understand that you will probably NEVER be able to buy Grade 1 military ammo made by a US military contractor, because 100% of it is contractually going to the military. Remember that there is a shortage of (Mil-Spec/Grade 1) ammo, with both ATK and Winchester failing to meet their requested quotas.
-Troy


I thought WIN Q3131A was mil-spec/grade 1; Made by IMI for WIN. It's scarce, but available.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 7:03:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By steven1513:
I thought WIN Q3131A was mil-spec/grade 1; Made by IMI for WIN. It's scarce, but available.



Q3131A is a commercial round. It's M193 for civilian use.
Top Top