Not for duty use? Federal 62 gr green tip - Page 2

AR-15 » Ammunition

AR Sponsor:

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Not for duty use? Federal 62 gr green tip (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 5/25/2011 10:19:17 AM EDT

[#1]

Eh... In a word... No.

M855, like other FMJ ammo, doesn't retain a ton of lethality after passing through barriers. In fact, it has very poor terminal performance after encountering windshield glass.

I wouldn't worry about overpenetration. Even with the "steel penetrator" it isn't a barrier-blind load by any means.

Posted: 5/25/2011 12:14:11 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
A buddy of mine picked up one of these "canned-deals"... shot about 100 rds of it without issue. So I picked up a can too...

Doesn't look, on the outside, any different from any other FC XM855 I've bought before...

For what I paid and my intended use, plus a new ammo can, a stripper clip tool and 42 reusable stripper clips... seems like a good deal to me... even if it says "Not for duty use" on the side of the can.

FWIW...

Bought some last friday from Sportsman's Warehouse. (420 rounds, M855, boxes, stipper clips, not for duty use, etc.), Shot 5 5-shot groups. 4 rounds into about 3/4-1", then 1 flier per group
1-1 1/4out. Allways high and right. So far, 100% reliability, and loaded in L.C. '11 cases. Somehow, something about it didn't make mil-spec. Someone knows what that is, but I don't. Good luck finding out.

Posted: 5/25/2011 9:36:35 PM EDT

[#3]

<Off-topic comment removed - Z>

Posted: 5/25/2011 9:54:12 PM EDT

[#4]

In my opinion "NOT FOR DUTY USE" means exactly that, it is a penetrator round and lacks the soft tissue damaging characteristics that are needed in a defensive round. I also agree that a 22 caliber penetrator round is not highly effective versus automotive windsheilds due to the glass thickness, density, and angle, it will still penetrate however in most circumstances. The bigger concern would be over penetration through basic building materials, sheet metal and of course soft tissue. It is still good ammunition and will not harm your weapon but would not be my first choice for personal defence, with that said at the price it is right now its hard to pass up.

Posted: 5/29/2011 9:52:24 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

In my opinion "NOT FOR DUTY USE" means exactly that, it is a penetrator round and lacks the soft tissue damaging characteristics that are needed in a defensive round. I also agree that a 22 caliber penetrator round is not highly effective versus automotive windsheilds due to the glass thickness, density, and angle, it will still penetrate however in most circumstances. The bigger concern would be over penetration through basic building materials, sheet metal and of course soft tissue. It is still good ammunition and will not harm your weapon but would not be my first choice for personal defence, with that said at the price it is right now its hard to pass up.

<Off-topic comment removed - Z>

You fail to realize that Federal is labeling this XM855 different than all of the other 855 they sell because something wasn't right about it......lower velocity than "spec", primer issues, powder irreguarity etc. Something didn't pass muster and that is that, hence why it is being sold the way it is. To pay more than full price for it because it comes in a can and on strippers is beyond stupid.....go look up on Gunbroker what people are bidding on this stuff

On this holiday weekend, you and Espos1111 can meet up on the range in CO and talk your bullshit....just don't try and spread it here. If you do get some spare time, you should research Molon's excellent posts on ammo reviews and edjumicate yourself...you do really need it.

Posted: 5/29/2011 9:53:14 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
that stuff needs to be checked as you load mags or stripper clips, i average about 5-10% that i put to the side, those 5-10% i will shoot most likely but not through a can or a nice gun,

AND i agree it shouldn't be full price

I would think Bryan from AIM might know what he is talking about

Posted: 5/29/2011 9:55:14 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Yes I posted to both threads because they were linked by another poster and the informations is the same for both loads. I'm not "braging " about 3/4 " groups at 100 yards whether it is three or five shot strings as there are plenty of shooters on this forum as well as out there that can do much better. I simply am stating that if you buy factory packaged xm193 or xm855 from a reputable vender you are getting what you paid for and shouldn't have any concerns. ATK is not going to put defective ammunition in the hands of consumers period.

They (ATK) do every year; It's called having a "re-call". Sub Moa M193/M855?

Your quickly crossing the double yellow line of reason and crossing into the stupid lane.

A recall is different than knowingly selling defective ammunition, and marking it as such and then selling it would definitly invite lawsuits. Come on have a little common sense, and as far as your statement and animation go you proved nothing more than your williness to be an asshole. If
your going to post in the thread the least you could do is bring something of informational value.

Let me bring something of informational value lest those who may not know better come to believe in acheiving sub MOA accuracy with XM193 or 855.

IMO it's more likely for a shooter to get stomped by a unicorn while changing targets.

Some individuals constantly claim sub MOA with that sort of ammo, even guys in my club.

But they never, ever, get anything approaching that level of accuracy when I'm present, or for that matter anyone else.

Maybe it's bad luck, perhaps they get nervous when they shoot with people they know, or could be something else.

Posted: 5/29/2011 11:49:24 AM EDT

[#8]

I bought 3 ammo cans of this stuff recently at Academy.

Everything I have shot so far has been fine.

Posted: 5/31/2011 8:28:32 AM EDT

[#9]

<Off-topic comment removed - WARNING SENT - Z>

For the record I routinely achieve 3/4 to 1" groups using XM 193 at 100 yards during ideal weather with three and five shot strings from a rested position. I am not using irons, red dots, or an acog. For accuracy testing I am using a Leupold 4.5 - 14 X vari x 3 on a Wilson Custom.

Posted: 5/31/2011 8:44:37 AM EDT

[#10]

<Off-topic comment removed - WARNING SENT - Z>

Posted: 5/31/2011 9:07:59 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Diversmith I dont know the other individual you are referring to but your posts speak for them selves. You are the typical loud mouth asshole who tries to make up for your own inadequacies by allowing your mouth to run rampant on this and probably other forums. For the record I routinely achieve 3/4 to 1" groups using XM 193 at 100 yards during ideal weather with three and five shot strings from a rested position. I am not using irons, red dots, or an acog. For accuracy testing I am using a Leupold 4.5 - 14 X vari x 3 on a Wilson Custom.

I will say that I did take notice of the way that you bullied the other poster but your argument has no merit and your ignorance speaks volumes about your knowledge. If you wish to be taken seriously you should bring something of more value, and of a more objective nature than the normal foul mouthed rhetoric that you so willingly strew out. You are one of those individuals that are counter productive to forums because you lend your mind to internet rumor and then try to bully any opposition or repress the truth. I gave you a link to federals faq which is factual information you have gave this forum nothing but a headache.

... You should do a 10-shot group. This is a much better measurement of the ammo, barrel, and shooter's accuracy than smaller groups. It's easy to get "lucky" with a 3 or 5 shot group. Not so much with a 10 shot group. If you really want to prove the accuracy, do a 30 shot group. Then there's absolutely no way it's luck.

Also, how are you measuring your groups? Extreme spread (distance from furthest two shots in the group) or mean radius (distance from middle of the group to the furthest out shot in the group)?

Where's this link to Federal's FAQ? I don't see it...

Posted: 5/31/2011 12:34:13 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Diversmith I dont know the other individual you are referring to but your posts speak for them selves. You are the typical loud mouth asshole who tries to make up for your own inadequacies by allowing your mouth to run rampant on this and probably other forums. For the record I routinely achieve 3/4 to 1" groups using XM 193 at 100 yards during ideal weather with three and five shot strings from a rested position. I am not using irons, red dots, or an acog. For accuracy testing I am using a Leupold 4.5 - 14 X vari x 3 on a Wilson Custom.

I will say that I did take notice of the way that you bullied the other poster but your argument has no merit and your ignorance speaks volumes about your knowledge. If you wish to be taken seriously you should bring something of more value, and of a more objective nature than the normal foul mouthed rhetoric that you so willingly strew out. You are one of those individuals that are counter productive to forums because you lend your mind to internet rumor and then try to bully any opposition or repress the truth. I gave you a link to federals faq which is factual information you have gave this forum nothing but a headache.

... You should do a 10-shot group. This is a much better measurement of the ammo, barrel, and shooter's accuracy than smaller groups. It's easy to get "lucky" with a 3 or 5 shot group. Not so much with a 10 shot group. If you really want to prove the accuracy, do a 30 shot group. Then there's absolutely no way it's luck.

Also, how are you measuring your groups? Extreme spread (distance from furthest two shots in the group) or mean radius (distance from middle of the group to the furthest out shot in the group)?

Where's this link to Federal's FAQ? I don't see it...

Come on Krylancelo....give this guy a break or he will call you a prick and tell you that you know nothing!!!!

I guess Molon don't know jack either....and I obviously don't know jack because I don't cherry pick a 3 shot group that I get with my JP-15 upper and then run my mouth off about my .75 MOA rig. But he obviously knows his stuff because he has a VXIII on top of a Wilson

WinstonStix....you don't want to let people help you and THAT is painfully obvious....you think run-of-the-mill mass-produced military ammo is going to magically give you sub-MOA results and that just proves you have no experience on this subject and instead of reading up on the readily available testing that others have done, you just want to bash on someone just because he doesn't have 17 posts like you....you just popped up on this site and can't even read the rules of conduct...next you will probably move over to the equipment exchange and fuck things up over there as well just like a lot of newbies invariably do. I'm sure you will keep calling me names even though I never once called you a name...I just called you out on your bullying and bullshit spewing attitude. I don't like bullys so I will continue to call you out when you try to bully another poster who actually talks sense

Posted: 5/31/2011 12:45:39 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Diversmith I dont know the other individual you are referring to but your posts speak for them selves. You are the typical loud mouth asshole who tries to make up for your own inadequacies by allowing your mouth to run rampant on this and probably other forums. For the record I routinely achieve 3/4 to 1" groups using XM 193 at 100 yards during ideal weather with three and five shot strings from a rested position. I am not using irons, red dots, or an acog. For accuracy testing I am using a Leupold 4.5 - 14 X vari x 3 on a Wilson Custom.

I will say that I did take notice of the way that you bullied the other poster but your argument has no merit and your ignorance speaks volumes about your knowledge. If you wish to be taken seriously you should bring something of more value, and of a more objective nature than the normal foul mouthed rhetoric that you so willingly strew out. You are one of those individuals that are counter productive to forums because you lend your mind to internet rumor and then try to bully any opposition or repress the truth. I gave you a link to federals faq which is factual information you have gave this forum nothing but a headache.

I have no problems admitting my "inadequacies" of not getting sub-MOA with XM193

You on the other hand, are obviously a recently retired Delta Seal Space Shuttle door gunner sniper and we all need to bow down to your infinite wisdom on ammo testing! Hell, next thing we know you are going to be talking about working at Black Hills Ammo Corp. since your retirement from the military

MODS can we please "educate" WinstonStix and get this thread back on track of being "technical" in nature????? The last thing we need are newbies shitting in technical threads with their "opinions" that fly in the face of all things we know to be true!!! Thanks mods

Posted: 5/31/2011 8:47:42 PM EDT

[#14]

<Off-topic comment removed - Z>

Posted: 5/31/2011 9:17:59 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Diversmith I dont know the other individual you are referring to but your posts speak for them selves. You are the typical loud mouth asshole who tries to make up for your own inadequacies by allowing your mouth to run rampant on this and probably other forums. For the record I routinely achieve 3/4 to 1" groups using XM 193 at 100 yards during ideal weather with three and five shot strings from a rested position. I am not using irons, red dots, or an acog. For accuracy testing I am using a Leupold 4.5 - 14 X vari x 3 on a Wilson Custom.

I will say that I did take notice of the way that you bullied the other poster but your argument has no merit and your ignorance speaks volumes about your knowledge. If you wish to be taken seriously you should bring something of more value, and of a more objective nature than the normal foul mouthed rhetoric that you so willingly strew out. You are one of those individuals that are counter productive to forums because you lend your mind to internet rumor and then try to bully any opposition or repress the truth. I gave you a link to federals faq which is factual information you have gave this forum nothing but a headache.

... You should do a 10-shot group. This is a much better measurement of the ammo, barrel, and shooter's accuracy than smaller groups. It's easy to get "lucky" with a 3 or 5 shot group. Not so much with a 10 shot group. If you really want to prove the accuracy, do a 30 shot group. Then there's absolutely no way it's luck.

Also, how are you measuring your groups? Extreme spread (distance from furthest two shots in the group) or mean radius (distance from middle of the group to the furthest out shot in the group)?

Where's this link to Federal's FAQ? I don't see it...

Krylancelo,
I agree ten shot strings are a much more accurate method of measurement and I do run Ten shot strings but only when I am using a chronograph or working up a new load. I do this for the obvious reason that when you increase your shot count you also increase your odds of fliers caused by charge inconsistency, and a chrono helps to identify rounds of significant difference. I most often lack the motivation to carry the chrono and stand with me though so three and five shot strings are the norm. As to your other question yes I measure extreme spread, and i must apologize the link i posted was in the other thread on XM 193 but it was also posted in this thread by TGH456E and is below.

http://www.federalpremium.com/resources/xm193.aspx

Posted: 6/1/2011 11:31:54 AM EDT

[#16]

I ordered a can of this from Palmetto for $139 shipped. All of the LC 193 and 855 I have gotten from Palmetto has been GTG so far.

Posted: 6/2/2011 10:25:52 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

In my opinion "NOT FOR DUTY USE" means exactly that, it is a penetrator round and lacks the soft tissue damaging characteristics that are needed in a defensive round. I also agree that a 22 caliber penetrator round is not highly effective versus automotive windsheilds due to the glass thickness, density, and angle, it will still penetrate however in most circumstances. The bigger concern would be over penetration through basic building materials, sheet metal and of course soft tissue. It is still good ammunition and will not harm your weapon but would not be my first choice for personal defence, with that said at the price it is right now its hard to pass up.

WinstonStix:

Let me address several comments you made since they are painfully incorrect. An explanation: This is a TECHNICAL FORUM. As such, we expect a certain level of knowledge and expertise to post things as "facts"; your posts haven't met that standard.

First of all: NOT FOR DUTY USE has NOTHING to do with the terminal ballistics performance of the ammo. If you find proof of that, please share. The reason it's labeled as such is that it failed certain QC criteria and isn't deemed reliable enough to be sold as other ammo. This may come in too much variation in powder charge/velocity, lack of sealant, not accurate enough, etc.

Second: You are NOT getting 3/4 MOA with M855. Why do I make this claim? very simple: The US military has accuracy specs for M855 (and M193), and Federal tests their product before it leaves the factory. Unlike the average shooter, they use a MACHINE REST and certified test barrels which remove everything but the ammunition out of the equation. When only the ammo is tested, you get an average accuracy of 3 MOA at best. You're basically claiming that you're shooting better than the ammo is capable of.

Posters like Molon have gone through great lengths to show how/why people are inaccurately claiming these fantastic groups using standard rifles and ammo in this post: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=279218. You would do well to read that post.

Until then, please refrain from posting inaccurate/false information.

Posted: 6/2/2011 2:43:48 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
In my opinion "NOT FOR DUTY USE" means exactly that, it is a penetrator round and lacks the soft tissue damaging characteristics that are needed in a defensive round. I also agree that a 22 caliber penetrator round is not highly effective versus automotive windsheilds due to the glass thickness, density, and angle, it will still penetrate however in most circumstances. The bigger concern would be over penetration through basic building materials, sheet metal and of course soft tissue. It is still good ammunition and will not harm your weapon but would not be my first choice for personal defence, with that said at the price it is right now its hard to pass up.

WinstonStix:

Let me address several comments you made since they are painfully incorrect. An explanation: This is a TECHNICAL FORUM. As such, we expect a certain level of knowledge and expertise to post things as "facts"; your posts haven't met that standard.

First of all: NOT FOR DUTY USE has NOTHING to do with the terminal ballistics performance of the ammo. If you find proof of that, please share. The reason it's labeled as such is that it failed certain QC criteria and isn't deemed reliable enough to be sold as other ammo. This may come in too much variation in powder charge/velocity, lack of sealant, not accurate enough, etc.

Second: You are NOT getting 3/4 MOA with M855. Why do I make this claim? very simple: The US military has accuracy specs for M855 (and M193), and Federal tests their product before it leaves the factory. Unlike the average shooter, they use a MACHINE REST and certified test barrels which remove everything but the ammunition out of the equation. When only the ammo is tested, you get an average accuracy of 3 MOA at best. You're basically claiming that you're shooting better than the ammo is capable of.http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=10211

Posters like Molon have gone through great lengths to show how/why people are inaccurately claiming these fantastic groups using standard rifles and ammo in this post: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=279218. You would do well to read that post.

Until then, please refrain from posting inaccurate/false information.

I never made this claim, If you re read my post you will see that my statement was of XM 193 and I consider it a statment not a claim.

Federals spec for XM 193 is "ACCURACY: 3-10 round groups not to exceed 2.00" mean radius maximum average at 200 yards"

Posted: 6/2/2011 3:01:17 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

I never made this claim, If you re read my post you will see that my statement was of XM 193 and I consider it a statment not a claim.

Federals spec for XM 193 is "ACCURACY: 3-10 round groups not to exceed 2.00" mean radius maximum average at 200 yards"

A mean RADIUS of 2.0" means that it's 4" in diameter. Furthermore, MEAN radius is not extreme spread, which is what we typically refer to as "group size". A mean diameter of 4" is going to have an even larger extreme spread. For simplicity's sake, let's say that a group shooting 4" mean diameter is going to have an extreme spread of 5" @ 200 yards, which translates roughly into 2.5" at 100 yards. Even in a perfect world, the mean diameter of 4" at 200 yards would give you no better than 2" at 100 yards.

Coupled with the fact that I've never seen anyone credible claim a 10-shot 3/4" group with M193 out of a standard standard AR-15: you really need to read the article by Molon I referenced. [ETA] It explains how mean radius is calculated among other things.

Posted: 6/2/2011 3:09:17 PM EDT

[#20]

I'll save you the trouble and post the relevant info here:

Quoted:

MEAN RADIUS

Before I can continue with The Trouble With 3-Shot Groups,
I need to define the concept of "mean radius" (also called average
group radius.) Mean radius is the method of measurement used by the US
Military for accuracy testing of ammunition. It provides a more useful
analysis of the consistency of ammunition and rifle accuracy.

The
typical method used to measure a group consists of measuring the
distance between the centers of the two most outlying shots of a group.
This would be the "extreme spread" of the group. We are essentially
measuring the distance between the two worst shots of a group. Take a look at the two targets below.

Most
people would intuitively conclude that the second target shown is the
"better" group. Measuring the two groups using the "extreme spread"
method, we find that both groups measure 2.1". Once again with the
typical method of measuring groups we are measuring the distance between
the two worst shots of the group. This method tells us nothing about
the other eight shots in the group. So how can we quantitatively show
that the second group is better than the first? (Yes, we could score
the groups using "X-ring" count, but this does not give us any
differential information about all those shots in the X-ring.) This is
were the mean radius method comes in. It will give us that extra
information we need to better analyze our groups, rifles and ammuntion.
If I just reported the measurements of the two groups above using the
extreme spread meathod, without a picture, you would assume that the two
groups were very much the same. Using the mean radius method shows
that the second group is much more consistent. It has a mean radius of
0.43" compared to 0.78" for the first group.

Below is a brief description of the mean radius using M193 and XM193 specifications for examples. It is a repost from How Accurate is XM193?

U.S.
military specifications for M193 (MIL-C-9963) call for an accuracy
requirement of a two-inch mean radius at 200 yards (using 10-shot
groups). Federal XM193 calls for a four-inch mean radius at 200 yards.
Right from the start we can see that Federal XM193 is only required to
group half as accurately as U.S. M193.

To understand the actual
size of the groups we are talking about we need to understand the
difference between group size as measured in extreme spread versus
groups measured using the mean radius. Below is a picture of a 10-shot
group of Federal XM193 fired at 100 yards. The group size or extreme
spread measures 2.34" or 2.34 minutes of angle.* The mean radius of this
same group is only 0.72".

Mean radius as defined in Hatcher's Notebook
"is the average distance of all the shots from the center of the group.
It is usually about one third the group diameter" (extreme spread).

"To
obtain the mean radius of a shot group, measure the heights of all
shots above an arbitrarily chosen horizontal line. Average these
measurements. The result is the height of the center of the group above
the chosen line. Then in the same way get the horizontal distance of the
center from some vertical line, such as for instance, the left edge of
the target. These two measurements will locate the group center.

"Now measure the distance of each shot from this center. The average of these measures is the mean radius."

Once
you get the hang of measuring groups using the mean radius it becomes
very simple to do. While being very simple to do, it is also very time
consuming. Modern software programs such as RSI Shooting Lab make determining the mean radius a snap.

The picture below is a screen snapshot from RSI Shooting Lab
using the group from the above target. The red cross is the center of
the group (a little high and right of the aiming point). The long red
line shows the two shots forming the extreme spread or group size. The
yellow line from the red cross to one of the shots is a radius. Measure
all the radii and take the average to obtain the mean radius.

Using
Hatcher's one-third rule and applying it to my group above you can see
that while not exact it is close enough for "government work."

2.34" (extreme spread) divided by 3 equals 0.78" (mean radius). Actual mean radius being 0.72".

Finally,
applying Hatcher's one-third rule to Federal's requirement for XM193 of
a 4" mean radius at 200 yards for three, 10-shot groups, we see that it
only needs to group into a 12" average group for three 10-shot groups
at 200 yards!

4" (mean radius ) times 3 equals 12" (extreme spread). 12" at 200 yards is 6 minutes of angle or 6" at 100 yards.

to be continued...

Notice how a 2.1" group size has a mean radius of 0.78. Now extrapolate that out to your mention of 2" mean radius at 200 yards and you can see how that would indicate a group size of approximately 6" at 200, or 3" at 100.

Posted: 6/2/2011 4:07:23 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
I'll save you the trouble and post the relevant info here:

Quoted:

MEAN RADIUS

Before I can continue with The Trouble With 3-Shot Groups, I need to define the concept of "mean radius" (also called average group radius.) Mean radius is the method of measurement used by the US Military for accuracy testing of ammunition. It provides a more useful analysis of the consistency of ammunition and rifle accuracy.

The typical method used to measure a group consists of measuring the distance between the centers of the two most outlying shots of a group. This would be the "extreme spread" of the group. We are essentially measuring the distance between the two worst shots of a group. Take a look at the two targets below.

http://home.comcast.net/%7Egocartmozart/mean_radius_example_02.jpg

Most people would intuitively conclude that the second target shown is the "better" group. Measuring the two groups using the "extreme spread" method, we find that both groups measure 2.1". Once again with the
typical method of measuring groups we are measuring the distance between the two worst shots of the group. This method tells us nothing about the other eight shots in the group. So how can we quantitatively show that the second group is better than the first? (Yes, we could score the groups using "X-ring" count, but this does not give us any differential information about all those shots in the X-ring.) This is were the mean radius method comes in. It will give us that extra information we need to better analyze our groups, rifles and ammuntion. If I just reported the measurements of the two groups above using the extreme spread meathod, without a picture, you would assume that the two groups were very much the same. Using the mean radius method shows that the second group is much more consistent. It has a mean radius of 0.43" compared to 0.78" for the first group.

Below is a brief description of the mean radius using M193 and XM193 specifications for examples. It is a repost from How Accurate is XM193?

U.S. military specifications for M193 (MIL-C-9963) call for an accuracy requirement of a two-inch mean radius at 200 yards (using 10-shot groups). ]Federal XM193 calls for a four-inch mean radius at 200 yards. Right from the start we can see that Federal XM193 is only required to group half as accurately as U.S. M193. To understand the actual size of the groups we are talking about we need to understand the difference between group size as measured in extreme spread versus groups measured using the mean radius. Below is a picture of a 10-shot group of Federal XM193 fired at 100 yards. The group size or extreme spread measures 2.34" or 2.34 minutes of angle.* The mean radius of this same group is only 0.72".

http://www.federalpremium.com/resources/xm193.aspx

http://home.comcast.net/%7Egocartmozart/group1_xm193.jpg

Mean radius as defined in Hatcher's Notebook "is the average distance of all the shots from the center of the group. It is usually about one third the group diameter" (extreme spread).

"To obtain the mean radius of a shot group, measure the heights of all shots above an arbitrarily chosen horizontal line. Average these measurements. The result is the height of the center of the group above the chosen line. Then in the same way get the horizontal distance of the center from some vertical line, such as for instance, the left edge of the target. These two measurements will locate the group center.

"Now measure the distance of each shot from this center. The average of these measures is the mean radius."

Once you get the hang of measuring groups using the mean radius it becomes very simple to do. While being very simple to do, it is also very time consuming. Modern software programs such as RSI Shooting Lab make determining the mean radius a snap.

The picture below is a screen snapshot from RSI Shooting Lab using the group from the above target. The red cross is the center of the group (a little high and right of the aiming point). The long red line shows the two shots forming the extreme spread or group size. The yellow line from the red cross to one of the shots is a radius. Measure all the radii and take the average to obtain the mean radius.

http://home.comcast.net/%7Egocartmozart/group1_graph.jpg

Using Hatcher's one-third rule and applying it to my group above you can see that while not exact it is close enough for "government work."
2.34" (extreme spread) divided by 3 equals 0.78" (mean radius). Actual mean radius being 0.72".

Finally, applying Hatcher's one-third rule to Federal's requirement for XM193 of a 4" mean radius at 200 yards for three, 10-shot groups, we see that it only needs to group into a 12" average group for three 10-shot groups at 200 yards!

http://www.federalpremium.com/resources/xm193.aspx

4" (mean radius ) times 3 equals 12" (extreme spread). 12" at 200 yards is 6 minutes of angle or 6" at 100 yards.

to be continued...

Notice how a 2.1" group size has a mean radius of 0.78. Now extrapolate that out to your mention of 2" mean radius at 200 yards and you can see how that would indicate a group size of approximately 6" at 200, or 3" at 100.

Please do not misunderstand me I am not attempting to discredit Molons work in any way, I in fact agree with his logic and his method but his "facts " are not correct as XM 193 has the same spec as M 193, and this is a large discrepency.

http://www.federalpremium.com/resources/xm193.aspx

Posted: 6/2/2011 4:28:00 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Please
do not misunderstand me I am not attempting to discredit Molons work in
any way, I in fact agree with his logic and his method but his "facts "
are not correct as XM 193 has the same spec as M 193, and this is a
large discrepency.

http://www.federalpremium.com/resources/xm193.aspx

You still don't understand. M193/XM193 both specify 2" mean RADIUS at 200 yards.
A 2" mean radius at 200 yards is a group size of about 6", or 3" at 100
yards. That means YOU are not going to be able to shoot 3/4" groups
when the ammo is doing about 3".

Posted: 6/2/2011 6:22:05 PM EDT

[#23]

In Your opinion then, and according to these formulas it is impossible to shoot a group of less than three inches at 100 yards with Federal XM193?

My point being that Federals "Accuracy Spec" of " 3-10 round groups not to exceed 2.00" mean radius maximum average at 200 yards " is a minimum must meet criteria. It is not however a representation of what the load is achieving at its best.

Posted: 6/2/2011 6:41:26 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Here's a "new" one: At Sportsman's (very good price), one of the guys in the gun section is ex-leo. His interpretation of "not for duty use" means not to be used by law enforcement. Because of the metal insert. " It might pass through unintended targets". Any law enforcement people out there that share the same mind? I picked-up 5 cans of this stuff. Don't want my high end ar's to kaboomb

or not do intended damage to BGs or zombies

He's a 'special' guy.
Fact is, businesses have liabilities. ATK has a liability just like a food producing company does to not be 'liable' for any 'concerning' products to be put out to their primary customers. What do you do with something that is still 99.9% perfect but has that .01% margin of error that can get you sued? Sell it to people who wont be harmed by that .01%!
Stop bitching about 'not for duty' ammo as a civilian. You won't experience that .01% and stop pretending that you will.

ETA: For the 'MOA' crowd...really? Seriously? If you claim to shoot MOA or sub-MOA with a surplus load and cartridge than you must be god damn superman or one of those multicam'd out superheroes in all the af.mil photos. You want sub-MOA? Practice, and buy good ammo. Don't pretend to be that superman with a 'not for duty use' ammo. It's a joke. Sub-MOA is horse shit for any practical use. There is no reason to have pride in shooting MOA if you are a civilian.

Posted: 6/2/2011 6:49:10 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

In Your opinion then, and according to these formulas it is impossible to shoot a group of less than three inches at 100 yards with Federal XM193?
My point being that Federals "Accuracy Spec" of " 3-10 round groups not to exceed 2.00" mean radius maximum average at 200 yards " is a minimum must meet criteria. It is not however a representation of what the load is achieving at its best.

Is it impossible? No. It's probably an accurate representation of what the AVERAGE group will look like though. Some will do better, some will do worse. Take a look again at the M855 chart I posted; there's certainly variation, and some do better than others.
Do I think an off-the-rack AR with XM193 will shoot 3/4" groups (extreme spread)? No.
For more information of what M193 accuracy looks like refer to this post: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=511804. In it, you can clearly see that the M193 variants tested did indeed shoot SMALLER mean radius groups than 2.0". The group size, however, is about 3" (remember that what you commonly call "group size" is technically called "extreme spread"):

In order for you to shoot a 3/4" group, your mean radius would be about a bullet diameter, or 1/4".

Posted: 6/6/2011 3:15:23 PM EDT

[#26]

I have a silly question... do these 420 round cans come with a stripper clip spoon? I have two cans but didn't want crack that nice fresh factory seal. Can anyone answer that question? thanks!

answered my own question from info on another site. It appears that it does.

Posted: 6/6/2011 4:59:52 PM EDT

[#27]

Yes.

Posted: 6/6/2011 11:47:49 PM EDT

[#28]

My ammo came in the other day. I popped the can open and all appears to be good. The rounds are very clean compared to other LC stuff I have gotten from Palmetto. This can is going into my stash for when the zombies come out to play. My can has two spoons it.

Posted: 6/7/2011 1:33:50 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

I have a silly question... do these 420 round cans come with a stripper clip spoon? I have two cans but didn't want crack that nice fresh factory seal. Can anyone answer that question? thanks!

answered my own question from info on another site. It appears that it does.

Yes, I got 3 can of the stuff, opened one.

Posted: 6/7/2011 3:18:52 AM EDT

[#30]

Thinking outside the box on this. I wonder if this "not for duty use" ammo is a sales and marketing idea dreamed up in corporate?

Lower the price, and still make a profit, by labeling it with a moniker that really says nothing about the quality of the product.

Doesn't say if it's seconds.
Doesn't say it's blemished.
Actually doesn't say anything positive or negative at all.
Seems to go bang according to the forum members.
It wouldn't be dangerous to the shooter, that would be foolish on LC's part.

Not for duty use leads us all to speculate but there is no concete evidence to why that is printed on the side.

LC knows there is a huge civilian market share for their 5.56 and most of us use it for non-life threatening situations, ie. paper and plinking, varmits.

Marketing says make a little on a lot and keep the 'top shelf" artificially high.
It was just recently we were all concerned with the price of ammo on the rise.

This being said, would I use it in a duty gun? No. But I don't have a duty gun either. Like I said, just thinking.

Posted: 6/7/2011 5:56:36 AM EDT

[#31]

I'm very tempted to buy a bunch from Palmetto. Hard to field test this product except for mechanical function. Terminal ballistics is a difficult proposition for average shooters. I really would like a pallet of this stuff. WE could use this in the Rocky Mtns. I guess "in reality" it doesn't matter. A good price on a good product. Long ways from Sc to Id.

Posted: 6/7/2011 7:11:35 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Thinking outside the box on this. I wonder if this "not for duty use" ammo is a sales and marketing idea dreamed up in corporate?

Nah. Ammo companies have along history of selling off stuff that failed QC with the "not for duty use" sticker. Speer did it with some lots of Gold Dots recently.

Posted: 6/7/2011 10:03:17 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
My ammo came in the other day. I popped the can open and all apears to be good. The rounds are very clean compaired to other LC stuff I have gotten from Palmetto. This can is going into my stash for when the zombies come out to play. My can has two spoons it.

2?! Both of mine only had one

Posted: 6/7/2011 3:52:48 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
My ammo came in the other day. I popped the can open and all apears to be good. The rounds are very clean compaired to other LC stuff I have gotten from Palmetto. This can is going into my stash for when the zombies come out to play. My can has two spoons it.

2?! Both of mine only had one

Bingo, we finally have the answer for "not for duty use". Some only having one spoon enclosed. I knew the forum would get to the bottom of this mystery.

Posted: 6/7/2011 5:31:58 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
My ammo came in the other day. I popped the can open and all appears to be good. The rounds are very clean compared to other LC stuff I have gotten from Palmetto. This can is going into my stash for when the zombies come out to play. My can has two spoons it.

2?! Both of mine only had one

Bingo, we finally have the answer for "not for duty use". Some only having one spoon enclosed. I knew the forum would get to the bottom of this mystery.

And I thought I was special

Posted: 6/7/2011 7:56:46 PM EDT

[#36]

I just ordered 500 rounds of "X" to play with, Fed XM193. I'm not worried about shooting it and having failures, but as a quality engineer, I'd be real interested in what their internal procedures say about QC release criteria. At one job a customer required us to dispose of the first 1000 parts of a new manufacturing lot after start up just to make sure the equipment was running right and producing in-spec. Usually up to the the first 50 showed slight variance (not out of spec, just movement in the control charts) and the rest was fine.

Wonder if this is the same deal? Fire up the loader, get me 200k rounds today, send the first 1k to the company store.

Man I'd love to audit an ammo manufacturer, it'd be like a food facility, either reassure you or scare the hell out of you.

Posted: 6/8/2011 7:34:08 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
I just ordered 500 rounds of "X" to play with, Fed XM193. I'm not worried about shooting it and having failures, but as a quality engineer, I'd be real interested in what their internal procedures say about QC release criteria. At one job a customer required us to dispose of the first 1000 parts of a new manufacturing lot after start up just to make sure the equipment was running right and producing in-spec. Usually up to the the first 50 showed slight variance (not out of spec, just movement in the control charts) and the rest was fine.

Wonder if this is the same deal? Fire up the loader, get me 200k rounds today, send the first 1k to the company store.

Man I'd love to audit an ammo manufacturer, it'd be like a food facility, either reassure you or scare the hell out of you.

The company I work for tried to buy the QC inspected ammo from Federal a few years and was told they do not re sell that ammo.

Posted: 6/8/2011 9:59:07 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I just ordered 500 rounds of "X" to play with, Fed XM193. I'm not worried about shooting it and having failures, but as a quality engineer, I'd be real interested in what their internal procedures say about QC release criteria. At one job a customer required us to dispose of the first 1000 parts of a new manufacturing lot after start up just to make sure the equipment was running right and producing in-spec. Usually up to the the first 50 showed slight variance (not out of spec, just movement in the control charts) and the rest was fine.

Wonder if this is the same deal? Fire up the loader, get me 200k rounds today, send the first 1k to the company store.

Man I'd love to audit an ammo manufacturer, it'd be like a food facility, either reassure you or scare the hell out of you.

The company I work for tried to buy the QC inspected ammo from Federal a few years and was told they do not re sell that ammo.

That's interesting, I wonder if they do destructive testing on them. They could tell a lot just from firing it from a sensor-heavy test barrel, a chrony, and a simple SPC program. It's safe to assume the incoming components have set specs for acceptance and if they ride those vendors hard the parts that get to the production line are all good to go. Theoretically at least. That leaves their equipment and process to control. Fun stuff.

I once opened up a pack of bullets (just bullets for loading my own) from a well known manufacturer and found a bunch of tiny pellets mixed in with the bullets. I emailed the company, told them what I found, and jokingly asked if I won a contest. I received a very short email saying not to worry about it, they were polishing beads, and that the bullets were just fine. I weighed each bullet just to be sure, but then again I weigh my primers and bullets anyway, so I'm a bit anal with my .308 handloads.

Posted: 6/8/2011 11:01:34 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
I just ordered 500 rounds of "X" to play with, Fed XM193. I'm not worried about shooting it and having failures, but as a quality engineer, I'd be real interested in what their internal procedures say about QC release criteria. At one job a customer required us to dispose of the first 1000 parts of a new manufacturing lot after start up just to make sure the equipment was running right and producing in-spec. Usually up to the the first 50 showed slight variance (not out of spec, just movement in the control charts) and the rest was fine.

Wonder if this is the same deal? Fire up the loader, get me 200k rounds today, send the first 1k to the company store.

Man I'd love to audit an ammo manufacturer, it'd be like a food facility, either reassure you or scare the hell out of you.

MIL-C-9963 lays out exactly what attributes need to be tested.

Some attributes must be tested in 100% of the rounds, some attributes less than 1%, and some must have sampling used. It also lays out what kind of sampling can be used.

This is ATKs official response to XM193 ammunition:

"XM193 ammunition is 5.56mm contract overrun material. It may not meet all of the mil-spec requirements, however, it does meet all requirements of commercial ammunition for pressure, form, fit and function. "

I cant imagine that there is that much XM193 which is QC rejects. If that were the case, ATK would be the one of the worst manufacturers out there considering the amount of rounds we see. M193 is not bought in massive quantities anymore. So if you look at the equation, the stuff coming onto the civilian market just cannot be all QC rejects.

Posted: 6/8/2011 3:05:19 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I just ordered 500 rounds of "X" to play with, Fed XM193. I'm not worried about shooting it and having failures, but as a quality engineer, I'd be real interested in what their internal procedures say about QC release criteria. At one job a customer required us to dispose of the first 1000 parts of a new manufacturing lot after start up just to make sure the equipment was running right and producing in-spec. Usually up to the the first 50 showed slight variance (not out of spec, just movement in the control charts) and the rest was fine.

Wonder if this is the same deal? Fire up the loader, get me 200k rounds today, send the first 1k to the company store.

Man I'd love to audit an ammo manufacturer, it'd be like a food facility, either reassure you or scare the hell out of you.

MIL-C-9963 lays out exactly what attributes need to be tested.

Some attributes must be tested in 100% of the rounds, some attributes less than 1%, and some must have sampling used. It also lays out what kind of sampling can be used.

This is ATKs official response to XM193 ammunition:

"XM193 ammunition is 5.56mm contract overrun material. It may not meet all of the mil-spec requirements, however, it does meet all requirements of commercial ammunition for pressure, form, fit and function. "

I cant imagine that there is that much XM193 which is QC rejects. If that were the case, ATK would be the one of the worst manufacturers out there considering the amount of rounds we see. M193 is not bought in massive quantities anymore. So if you look at the equation, the stuff coming onto the civilian market just cannot be all QC rejects.

Thanks, I planned to look for something like that online tonight. I'll look it over and satisfy my curiosity.

Posted: 6/8/2011 3:05:51 PM EDT

[#41]

A lot of folk's here need to read Chuck Marsh's recent NDIA paper, as it is a DAMNING indictment of the Army's FAILED ammunition procurement policies, as related to accuracy testing requirements: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011smallarms/Thursday12901Marsh.pdf.

Posted: 6/8/2011 3:37:40 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

A lot of folk's here need to read Chuck Marsh's recent NDIA paper, as it is a DAMNING indictment of the Army's FAILED ammunition procurement policies, as related to accuracy testing requirements: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011smallarms/Thursday12901Marsh.pdf.

Dr. Roberts: Let me make sure I interpreted the presentation correctly: The Army uses MR and the associated SD calculations to qualify lot accuracy for acceptance criteria. This has the effect of discarding "flyers" which are reflected in ES. Mk262 is tested using composite groups with a requirement for minimum ES instead.

The net result is that rounds like M855 are accepted with what amounts to very poor accuracy. While this is not a problem for machine guns, it's a serious problem for soldiers trying to score long range hits. RDECOM's presentation to USSOCOM makes it out like using ES as a criteria is "bad", costing a lot more and causing a "risk" to soldiers, yet Mk262 isn't that much more expensive than Mk318 even though it's significantly more accurate - it belies the fact that testing for ES causes a large increase in cost.

Is that an accurate assessment?

Posted: 6/8/2011 6:36:27 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
A lot of folk's here need to read Chuck Marsh's recent NDIA paper, as it is a DAMNING indictment of the Army's FAILED ammunition procurement policies, as related to accuracy testing requirements: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011smallarms/Thursday12901Marsh.pdf.

Dr. Roberts: Let me make sure I interpreted the presentation correctly: The Army uses MR and the associated SD calculations to qualify lot accuracy for acceptance criteria. This has the effect of discarding "flyers" which are reflected in ES. Mk262 is tested using composite groups with a requirement for minimum ES instead.

The net result is that rounds like M855 are accepted with what amounts to very poor accuracy. While this is not a problem for machine guns, it's a serious problem for soldiers trying to score long range hits. RDECOM's presentation to USSOCOM makes it out like using ES as a criteria is "bad", costing a lot more and causing a "risk" to soldiers, yet Mk262 isn't that much more expensive than Mk318 even though it's significantly more accurate - it belies the fact that testing for ES causes a large increase in cost.

Is that an accurate assessment?

That's interesting reading (oh Lord, I am a confirmed geek). I'm going to save it and go over it again later to make sure I understood what I read. I guess I don't see why ES would be bad on a large number groups as long as there were reasonable data-developed control limits and it was used as a process improvement check, not a final acceptance criteria. Unless it's contained in MIL-C-9963-F5, I don't recall seeing a sampling plan. But milspec is the master of sampling plans so I'm sure it's in there. While I"m a personal fan of SD, I've only done stat work on my velocities, and not the groups I shoot, those are strictly evaluated by spread, even though I know the rifle and ammo shoots better than I ever will. I will be doing that from now on, a whole new area to play in.

My favorite part of the presentation and the most true: Statistics can be manipulated to hide the truth.

Thanks for the link!!!!

Posted: 6/11/2011 7:56:30 PM EDT

[#44]

After reading that again, I think I understand a little better.

Randomly selected rounds from a production lot fired in a 50 shot string using ES to pass/fail the lot sounds pretty good. Flyers concern me though. You can get a flyer from a bad bullet, substandard primer, or funky powder load. Keep track of the individual test rounds and then do a confirming test of 10 rounds upstream and downstream of the flyer round to check for an anomaly.

Assuming sub lots or time stamps are used to track locations of rounds in the production line. Too many unknowns in high volume ammo manufacturing for me, as well as low experience in high volume production. I'm more of the small lot - everything perfect type quality engineer (implantable medical devices).

With the money spent on Defense, there's no reason to skimp on quality testing on essentials. Ammo is an "essential". Murphy's Law only goes so far - "never forget your equipment is made by the lowest bidder".

Posted: 6/12/2011 9:38:23 AM EDT

[#45]

wow talk about beating a dead horse just let it die already.

Posted: 6/12/2011 5:30:58 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
wow talk about beating a dead horse just let it die already.

Aww, I was just getting warmed up. Feel free to click that little "ignore" button under my post if you're all hot and buttered.

Posted: 6/14/2011 8:03:22 AM EDT

[#47]

HOLY SMOKES! Somebody go shoot this stuff and report back!!!!! I won't be able to get out until fall. I could shoot this in my back yard but it's only 25yds. And it would have to be at night

. Oh hell I'll just order 5-6 cans. Can't be that bad. Would like to shoot some before putting it in storage.

Posted: 6/14/2011 3:24:04 PM EDT

[#48]

I sure would like to hear of some more range reports on this stuff, I'm inclined to buy some, but I just can't bring myself to do it after what all I have read in this thread. But then with my luck, after its all gone I'll find out it was good stuff. So, shoot some more, and report back.

Posted: 6/15/2011 10:30:16 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
I sure would like to hear of some more range reports on this stuff, I'm inclined to buy some, but I just can't bring myself to do it after what all I have read in this thread. But then with my luck, after its all gone I'll find out it was good stuff. So, shoot some more, and report back.

Well, I shot a few more 5 shot groups @100 yrds and got the same results as last time. 4 would go into about an inch with one flier out at 2 'oclock to open up the group to about 1 3/4".
Shot pretty good for "green tip", and the brass is my favorite for MK262 clone reloads. I think it's worth the price. Up to you though.

Posted: 6/15/2011 11:25:33 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I sure would like to hear of some more range reports on this stuff, I'm inclined to buy some, but I just can't bring myself to do it after what all I have read in this thread. But then with my luck, after its all gone I'll find out it was good stuff. So, shoot some more, and report back.

Well, I shot a few more 5 shot groups @100 yrds and got the same results as last time. 4 would go into about an inch with one flier out at 2 'oclock to open up the group to about 1 3/4".

Shot pretty good for "green tip", and the brass is my favorite for MK262 clone reloads. I think it's worth the price. Up to you though.

No such thing as "fliers". You can't dismiss shots that you don't like - 10 shot groups are more indicative of the rifle/ammo's accuracy.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Not for duty use? Federal 62 gr green tip (Page 2 of 3)

AR-15 » Ammunition

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us