Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/5/2006 12:40:30 AM EDT
Based on all the reports coming in, I decided to summarize the general findings of all those who have reported the condition of the AIM Guatemalan 5.56 ammo they have taken delivery of so far. Please feel free to add your findings so people can get an accurate picture of the condition of this ammo and also for the benefit of those who want to leave the ammo sealed in the battlepacks for long term storage. For the sake of clarification, tarnish should not be classified at corrosion. Just my opinion, but I’ve been buying tarnished ammo for decades and have never had a problem with it. A lot of the LC ammo is tarnished that was manufactured in the last three years or so and is perfectly okay. Corrosion will appear to be a white(ish) deposit or rough feeling rusted looking exteriors. It would be helpful if you report the year, lot, and general condition of the ammo. Condition quantification using percentages gives a better picture of overall lot health. Also, I am sure AIM would like to know if there are any “problem” lots that the field is seeing that would validate their own inspection findings. “Hats-off” to AIM for implementing a self-inspection of this ammo. Here goes:

1988 Lot 7 One report that says lot is good.
1988 Lot 8 Two reports that say lot is good (less 2 corroded rounds reported).
1990 Lot 2 Two reports that say lot is corroded or up to 50% corroded.
1990 Lot 8 One report that says lot is corroded.
1990 Lot 9 Two reports that say lot is corroded or up to 75% corroded.
1990 Lot 11 One report that says lot is up to 20% corroded.
1990 Lot 12 One report that says lot is corroded.
1990 ????? Lot not reported. Two reports. One says good and the other says tarnished.
1991 Lot 6 One report that says lot is 4% corroded.
1992 Lot 7 One report that says lot is tarnished. Some rounds show white discoloration.
1992 ???? One report that says lot is good.
1993 Lot 1 One report that says lot is corroded.
1993 Lot 3 One report that says lot is 100% tarnished.
1993 Lot 5 One report that says lot is bad.
1993 ???? One report that says ammo is good. No mention as to lot #.
1997 Lot 6 Five reports that say lot is good, < 1% tarnish, “flippin perfect”
1997 Lot 7 Eleven reports. Lot is from < 1% up to 30% tarnished, < 1% corroded, or good and one report calls it corroded.
1997 ???? One report that says lot is good.

Based on reports so far, sometime in early 1997, ammo started being packed in wax coated cardboard that has been mostly effective in reducing the corrosion people are reporting with earlier lots. Just from the limited input so far, it looks like 1988 ammo is okay, 1990 is showing substantial corrosion, 1991 shows some limited corrosion but most of it is good, 1992 shows some tarnishing but little corrosion with most of the rounds being good, 1993 seems to show a lot of tarnish and/or corrosion on most of the ammo, and 1997 (by far the largest number or reports) seems to be pretty much okay. I didn't want to hijack anyones thread but was feeling skeptical that this stuff is good enough to buy but when I look at all reports, it does not look as bad as I had feared.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:06:34 AM EDT
Were is the date on this ammo? I have lot 10. I'm out of town so I can't open any until I get home in two weeks

Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:46:22 AM EDT
It occurred to me that where the stuff was stacked in the warehouse during storage might play a role. The crates on the outside are exposed to more temperature changes, while the crates buried deep inside the stack are somewhat insulated. That could could be why there's so much randomness in the results.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:52:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jercdevil:
Were is the date on this ammo? I have lot 10. I'm out of town so I can't open any until I get home in two weeks

img.photobucket.com/albums/v301/jercdevil/AfricaFebuary2006026.jpg



It's on the cartridge's headstamp in 2 digit format, i.e. "IMG 5.56 93" was manufactured in 1993.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 5:59:36 AM EDT
thanks for the info
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 6:00:19 AM EDT
Good job thanks. I have nine battlepacks coming on Monday will post up then.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 7:33:15 AM EDT
7/97

1-2% with corrosion spots

some tarnish
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 5:36:11 PM EDT
Guatemala 5.56-ammo purchase

Don’t Do It.

Ok,

This is how my order turned out.

Ordered 2-crates 2880-rounds.
Shipping cost approximate to Nevada, from AIM took a week good service.

• 8-A223 360-rd Pack Guatemalan $61.64-ea, total $493.20
• Shipping; Approximately $ 61.87
o Total $555.07

Crate #1 Lot 2, 1979 100% clean and no issues, have not shot any yet. Every thing looked like new. Battle pack looks like new. Date on crate 2/88.

Lot #2 Cost per round to Nevada $0.193-each, fair.

Crate #2 Lot 6, 1988 80% usable, 20% trash, have not shot any yet. Would not trust bad stuff very pitted. Box poor, battle pack weathered and soft. Cardboard very cheep and even marking poor. Date on crate 6/97.

Lot #6Cost per usable round to Nevada $0.240-each, Could have purchase first rate stuff.


So last two orders from AIM. I got 3000-rounds of Adcom that blows the primers and they jam up the trigger etc and now this stuff. Not sure I will be buying anymore surplus after being stung twice. Yes they said they will take it back but have to ship back$$$$
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:15:21 PM EDT
Anybody still buying this stuff is out of their mind. I had some 1991 dated stuff that I got back a few years ago, the first time this stuff was going around. Not one corroded round, 100% clean and shiny.

For the price you are paying for this stuff you can get brand new 100% A+ ammo like Federal AE, or spend just a wee bit more and get some XM193 or Q3131.

Anybody buying this stuff at these prices is out of their friggin mind!



Link Posted: 3/7/2006 8:01:40 PM EDT
I'm not keen on buying any more of it. I wish I had tried a battlepack first, instead of buying two crates. Or better yet, waited to see what other people got instead of rushing to grab some first.

Next time it'll be Canned Heat. Or Serbian M193. Or some WWB from Wal-Mart. . .
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 6:10:03 AM EDT
Dont do it part II

Ok i shoot some of lot #6 my very tarnished. No issues. 3-inch groups at 100-m from a 1-inch gun.

In all a guess besides looking realy bad. It is ok for cheep ammo. But I still would not do it agin.

Top Top