Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
AR Sponsor
9/26/2011 7:15:45 PM EDT
XM855LC AC1

School me...
9/26/2011 7:32:44 PM EDT
[#1]
It's  not recommended for duty use
9/26/2011 7:53:28 PM EDT
[#2]
Sir,

The M885 is a mil-spec cartridge. The rounds marked "Not for Duty Use"
had ballistic variations that were outside of mil-spec.

Thanks,

Federal Ammunition
9/26/2011 7:55:23 PM EDT
[#3]
It will explode.  Send it to me...I know an EOD tech.

9/26/2011 10:09:00 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
It will explode.  Send it to me...I know an EOD tech.



I'm the EOD tech
9/26/2011 10:22:04 PM EDT
[#5]
"X"

XM != M
9/27/2011 12:51:15 PM EDT
[#6]
NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH OP'S ORIGINAL IMAGE



OP,

You could always buy a can of this and give Arfcom a review of the two.







Note the XM855LC1 AC1 in the upper left hand corner of the label.



Chris





NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH OP'S ORIGINAL IMAGE

9/27/2011 2:28:11 PM EDT
[#7]
Ok did we answer the question?
9/27/2011 5:14:13 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Ok did we answer the question?


second poster did. it isnt recommened for duty use for whatever reason the lot was rejected by whoever rejected it for whatever reason.

edit to add. just found this on the second page of this forum. a little looking around will go a long way. check out this thread. there is a post from someone at sg ammo that explains why the ammo is not for duty.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_16/548697_Current_XM855LC1_being_offered_.html
9/27/2011 5:56:29 PM EDT
[#9]
It just didn't pass one of the many specs the .mil has for their ammo.
9/29/2011 4:56:19 PM EDT
[#10]
More specifically, some fraction of the production run that was randomlyselected for testing did not meet one or another acceptance standard, so the whole run was rejected.  Military acceptance standards are built for high levels of confidence in the ammunition's functioning and performance, so instead of a commercial approach where perhaps a second random sample was tested to zero in on the production problem, the military standard says "no" after too much variation in the first sample.  It could be that some small (acceptable) number of rounds was outside of accuracy standards while another (also acceptable) number failed velocity and yet another small (and still acceptable) number didn't pass the waterproofing tests.

This stuff is not the "floor sweepings" that were marketed in bulk several years ago, as evidenced by the completion of the production process (rounds with green tips and on strippers in tip protector sleeves).  I can't wait for the combination of survivable weather and free time I need to test out my own box of "AC1" (I.e. Widener's picture, not the OP's).
9/30/2011 1:19:51 PM EDT
[#11]
I like rejects.
AR Sponsor