Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/19/2006 9:00:53 PM EDT
I just bought a TA01 ACOG and was wondering if the BDC will work with Wolf Ammo. I know that the scope and BDC are calculated for 62gr bullets fired from a 16" barrel (I have a 16") but as we all know, Wolf tends to be a little underloaded.

Does anyone have experience shooting Wolf 62gr and using the ACOG BDC? Does it match up or do I need to go back to paying more for blasting ammo?
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 11:33:58 PM EDT
I dont shoot Wolf that far because by the time it got out to the BDC marks with your 4X scope you will have bullets all over the place in group measured in feet not inches.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 4:04:51 AM EDT
if its not for duty work and god hope it isnt then just zero with what you plan on shooting with and deal with the inaccuracy of wolf
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 4:08:20 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 4:16:05 AM EDT
Is it just me, or does anyone else find the use of low end ammo in a rifle equipped with $1000 dollar optic to be a bit asinine.

Even asking the question, borders on the ridiculas.

Mike
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 4:36:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mr_wilson:
Is it just me, or does anyone else find the use of low end ammo in a rifle equipped with $1000 dollar optic to be a bit asinine.

Even asking the question, borders on the ridiculas.

Mike

In a field expedient world any ammo would do, I have hasty zeroed rifles, WYSIWYG the object would be general type groupings, but a scoped rifle should be more accurately zeroed with the best ammo you can buy, and it should not take more than 3 rounds to get on paper andanother 3 rounds to zero, 25 yds should get you on paper, then pick the range you want for BZ0
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:51:32 AM EDT
I know plenty of people who use Wolf in rifles with high end optics and the rifles cost thousands of dollars... for full auto use at close range. Never seen anyone at the 400+ yard ine shooting Wolf.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:45:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mr_wilson:
Is it just me, or does anyone else find the use of low end ammo in a rifle equipped with $1000 dollar optic to be a bit asinine.

Even asking the question, borders on the ridiculas.

Mike



Does anyone think that people with more money than tact are a bit asinine? Perhaps a broke college student who dealt with crappy Wolf to afford a $1k optic in the first place would like to be able to eat AND shoot?

Even being that rude borders on ridiculous.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 11:12:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By USAF_Hop_N_Pop:
Does anyone think that people with more money than tact are a bit asinine? Perhaps a broke college student who dealt with crappy Wolf to afford a $1k optic in the first place would like to be able to eat AND shoot? Even being that rude borders on ridiculous.

Well, why I won't disagree with you that mr_wilson's post seems a bit abrasive, his point is valid. It is less than optimal to invest money in a top-of-the-line optic to only feed the rifle said optic is mounted on sub-par ammuntion.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 11:26:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 11:28:31 AM EDT by JosephR]
yeah, you should have gotten a TA31 with the Donut reticle. What is the donut at 100 yards? 6 MOA or so?

So using Wolf instead of name brand 5.56 surplus you were able to buy a $1000 optic?

What's .223 Wolf run per round? 12 cents? What's good IMI run? 18 cents? 6 cents per round savings would mean you've fired 16,667 rounds or so to save $1000.

I'm sure Ramen Noodles had lent a helping hand somewhere as well, right?

I see now you are talking about a TA01. Those can be had for $650. So only 10833 rounds of ammo...

TA01s are also calibrated for use on the carry handle IIRC. Are you using it on your Carry Handle or on a TA51?
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 11:39:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 11:41:43 AM EDT by Green0]
If you get ammo in bulk like 3000 rds at a time Wolf might cost like $90 a thousand for all I know.

Cheap ammo is good.

It goes too fast-- 400 rds in 40 minutes is a lot like burning money even in the WOLF price range. [I usually think about that every time I hit the range in the Army (THIS IS THE ONLY GOOD THING ABOUT THE ARMY- We go to the range and I get to shoot without paying the bill)]

I would say buy it try it- if it doesn't work use it for reflex firing under 100yds. If it does even work half assed it might be worth using. I would try to find the poly coated ammo and stay away from the older laquer cased unless you shoot slow- I'ld probably glue rounds into the chamber with that laquer cased ammo.

He has a point though if IMI is only a couple cents a round more and that turns out to be true- it might be worth buying for long range targeting and work.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 12:10:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JosephR:
What is the donut at 100 yards? 6 MOA or so?

The TA-31 is 4 MOA outer diameter and 2 MOA inner diameter.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 12:34:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 12:36:12 PM EDT by JosephR]
that donut is too small for Wolf MOA

Prices are from today's ammo section here:

Outdoor Marksman WOLF 55gr/62gr up $4.05/1000 to $120.00 + shipping. (1/12)
Ammunition Store - WOLF 55gr/62gr up $4/1000 to $109.95 + shipping. (1/13)
Ammoman WOLF 55gr/62gr up $10/1000 to $149.00 delivered. (1/8)

Outdoor Marksman Q3131 up $2.55/1000 to $212.50 + shipping. (1/11)

further down:
Midway USA 189.99 17.00 206.99

someone had M855 at 180 per 1000 if you bought 2000
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 12:58:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 3:54:50 PM EDT
I don't think anyone is argueing for shooting wolf in a match.

The point is getting cheaper practice.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 4:04:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By USAF_Hop_N_Pop:
I just bought a TA01 ACOG and was wondering if the BDC will work with Wolf Ammo. I know that the scope and BDC are calculated for 62gr bullets fired from a 16" barrel (I have a 16") but as we all know, Wolf tends to be a little underloaded.

Does anyone have experience shooting Wolf 62gr and using the ACOG BDC? Does it match up or do I need to go back to paying more for blasting ammo?



From Trijicon's website:

The TA01, TA11, & TA31 (.223) were designed for the 5.56mm, 20 inch barrel, 55 grain bullet, and M16/AR15 carry handle mount.


Like on my 20" A2 gov't model.

Link Posted: 1/20/2006 5:18:33 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 5:32:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By new-arguy:
my point was with Wolf you'll probably never be able to tell if it is on or not. The ammo is so underloaded and inconsistent (i.e. inaccurate) you wont know if the BDC is actually on, close to on, or completely off. You'll have to be able to print some type of group at ranges past 100 yards (past 400 would be ideal) to tell if it is on or off. Wolf just isnt capable of doing that, so the question is moot.



I know from experience that Wolf's loads are underpowered when compared with M193 and M855. That's not my point.

My point was that the TA01 was not designed for 62gr from a 16" barrel.

It was designed for M193 fired from a 20" barrel, when mounted in the carry handle.

So even if the Wolf 62gr was powered similar to M855 it STILL would not corrospond to the TA01's BDC.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 10:06:36 PM EDT
According to the paperwork for my TA01, it is designed to be mounted to the carry handle and used with 62gr ammo fired from a 16" bbl. This makes sense for two reasons:

1. 62gr is the current loading used by the military (M855)
2. calibrating it for a 16" bbl is a good compromise between the 14.5 (and shorter) M4 barrels and the 20" M16 barrels. If it were calibrated to a 20" bbl it would not be as versatile an optic. Remember, it is designed to make center of mass shots on targets out to 600+m, not to blast out the X-ring at that range. Compromising on bbl length is a good call there.

As for the Wolf ammo, I save ~$60 each case I buy of it. That means more shooting time and more practice to be better with my weapon. I realze that Wolf isn't worth a shit compared to XM855 or any other premium ammo, but it gets the job done for what I've been doing. I would never trust my life to Wolf, but it makes holes in paper and I havn't had much trouble grouping it inside 100yrds (and my range is only 100yrds long)

I plan to zero my ACOG with good ammo, then blast with Wolf, and I had wanted to know if the zero and BDC would still be good. I appreciate those who gave a good answer and to those people who would rather ridicule than help: thanks for nothing.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 5:27:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/22/2006 5:27:57 AM EDT by new-arguy]
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 1:20:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/23/2006 1:21:47 AM EDT by swingset]
All the snobbery and dickheadedness aside, let me answer your question with some hard data.

In my 20" A2 (scoped), the difference between XM193 & Wolf bore out to these differences in POI at measured distances.

Groups measured from mean point, averaged between center of hole.

100 yards: .745"
200 yards: 2.7"
300 yards: 7.22"
600 yards: 13.65"

So, assuming your reticle is pretty close with XM193, it's going to be off quite a bit beyond 200 yards. Accuracy with my gun the Wolf was not quite up to XM193, but was very close. It's not bad at all in my guns, and actually chrono'd with a better SD than XM. (13.5 instead of 19.8 for the Federal surp).

I applaud your use of Wolf, however. For no other reason than it aggravates ammo snobs and I enjoy seeing their righteous indignation. Carry on.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 7:42:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By swingset:
All the snobbery and dickheadedness aside, let me answer your question with some hard data.

In my 20" A2 (scoped), the difference between XM193 & Wolf bore out to these differences in POI at measured distances.

Groups measured from mean point, averaged between center of hole.

100 yards: .745"
200 yards: 2.7"
300 yards: 7.22"
600 yards: 13.65"

So, assuming your reticle is pretty close with XM193, it's going to be off quite a bit beyond 200 yards. Accuracy with my gun the Wolf was not quite up to XM193, but was very close. It's not bad at all in my guns, and actually chrono'd with a better SD than XM. (13.5 instead of 19.8 for the Federal surp).

I applaud your use of Wolf, however. For no other reason than it aggravates ammo snobs and I enjoy seeing their righteous indignation. Carry on.



That's interesting data. How was the grouping on that, or was Wolf impacting somewhat randomly and those were the average distances?
Top Top