Quoted:
pulldown powder is readily available. Check any decent supplier and they will have it. I would recommend hitechammo or wideners.

Quoted:


Thanks!  That's a hell of a lot easier, and cheaper than what I had in mind, now why wouldn't anybody tell me that in my first thread?

Quoted:
pulldown powder is readily available. Check any decent supplier and they will have it. I would recommend hitechammo or wideners.

Quoted:


Thanks!  That's a hell of a lot easier, and cheaper than what I had in mind, now why wouldn't anybody tell me that in my first thread?

Quoted:
There is no such thing as "factory reject Lake City ammo".  If it doesn't meet specifications, it is pulled down for salvage.  

What is sold by Federal Cartridge Company as "XMnnn" is remanufactured ammo from such pull down brass.  

Lake City Army Ammunition Plant is a government owned, contractor operated facility MANAGED by the US Army.  All produced ammo is property of the US Government and cannot be sold or traded except by the US Government.  

Furthermore, components arising from pull-down salvage operations cannot be used to produce ammunition for the US Government.  Title is passed to the operating contractor for disposal.  

Quoted:


You were told that information in the other thread.

If you sincerely believe that .223 Remington loads are "weak" compared to mil spec loads, you're on the wrong track and way misinformed.  It's easy to load .223 Remington to the same ballistic performance as mil spec with commercially available components, or so close the difference is trivial.

Reloaders are shooting pull down or rejected lot surplus powder by the ton.  If you are smart, you'll pay attention to the lot to lot variation.  There's a chance you'll get powder that was rejected during manufacturing for one reason or another, and not pulled down from loaded ammunition.

There are no primer crimp tools available to the hobby reloader.


What's wrong with mil spec ammunition?

Not much.  The uniformity of pressures and speeds of ammunition that passes QC is very good.  LC brass is top notch.  The bullets are mediocre, but good enough for their intended use.  I have posted excerpts from the MIL-C specs for M193 and M855 ammunition in the Reloading Resources in case you want to learn the facts about this ammunition.

Quoted:
My question to Small_Arms_Collector is this:
When you come up with your Mk262 load - HOW ARE YOU GOING TO KNOW IF IT IS PERFORMING LIKE ACTUAL Mk262 AMMO - VELOCITY WISE?
Do you have a chronograph and can you compare your Mk262 clone reloads to actual Mk262 ammunition shot from your rifle?  Obviously velocity is paramount to you - so how do you know if you have arrived at your destination?  Or what if you can't duplicate Mk262 velocity without excessive pressure signs?  What then?

There is a lot more to reloading Mk262 than just dumping in a large quantity of non-cannister data-spec powder.  You might be making some of those "weak" .223 loads yourself just winging it on a hope and a prayer of some listed powder charge found on the 'net.  

Quoted:


Nobody mentioned that in the first thread, all I got in that thread was people repeatedly telling me that there was nothing wrong with .223 SAAMI, and that I should focus on developing a super duper sub 1/4 MOA match load instead of trying to get Military Spec, to which I replied that it was for defensive ammo for combat distances, and probably no more than 7 yards, but I was told again that I need a super duper match load instead.

How exactly do you tell the difference between Pull Down Powder from Rejected Powder?

There's nothing at all wrong with Mil-Spec Ammunition, that's what I want, but the information that I have so far is that the XM stuff is factory rejected, I want the good stuff.



When I get some information to start trying to duplicate the load I'll pick up a Chronograph.

Quoted:


That's the first I ever heard of that, I've always been told that the XM stuff was the lots that failed QC, and the PD stuff was the XM stuff that was so bad it failed again.  Anyone else have any information on this?

What exactly is the difference then between M-193/M-855, and XM-193/XM-855?

Quoted:
WHY... people always want to duplicate ammo that meets "minimum" specs at the "lowest" price seems to
be like trying to figure the meaning of life.

There are WAY better components available on the market that can produce FAR superior Ammo.

The reason the Main service branches don't get to use it is:

If the standard to achieve the desired "adequate" result is "100" and contractor A submits a product that comes in
at "120", contractor B submits a product that scores 105, Contractor C submits one that scores 101, Contractor D at 99...
Then Contractors A, B & C rate "meets spec" during procurement review & D is eliminated.

A costs .27, B costs .25, and C costs .26, B wins the contract... it "meets spec" and is cheapest.

I'd rather have product A.  Some SOCOM units get A because THEY can get what they want.  Some REALLY SPECIAL
SOCOM units get product E... (.458 SOCOM) cause they can have shit invented just like they dreamed it.

SO.... JUST BECAUSE the Marines & 3rd Infantry get "stuck" with Product "B".... YOU can be like SOCOM & get
the best... not something that "meets spec & is made by the cheapest bidder".

Quoted:
NO... not saying MK262 is junk.  What is the history and original goal of MK262?
It was to develop a more effective load for SOCOM.  What did they try to duplicate?
They tried to duplicate the high performance competition loads used by reloaders.

So now you are trying to copy a copy??  Why not just come up with something as good or better.
Or better yet make the original Match rounds they are copying.  Like Aero said, 100-200 fps ain't gonna matter.

I AM saying M855 & M193 are "junk" compared to what you are able to manufacture yourself with the
components you have at your disposal.  Military ammo is design to meet a specific standard that will
accomplish the task in a mass producible package as cheap as possible.

I've NEVER heard of anybody using M855 or M193 in a match.  If you don't think Match ammo is effective at
stopping an attacker... you are welcome to hold a target for me at 100 yards while you wear a Level III vest,
if you are able to walk up to the bench and collect my rifles, you can have them.  The OP wants to use this stuff
at 7 yards.  I say at 7 yards a .223 varmint grenade is gonna stop you in you tracks.

Quoted:


The rules have never changed.  What Federal claims and what the US Government allows are in conflict.  Read is how you want it to read at: http://www.thegunzone.com/556xm.html

But there is careful crafting of that statement from Jason Nash at ATK.  The dead give-away is the term "commercial ammunition".  There is no commercial standard for 5.56 ammo because that defacto standard is SAAMI and 5.56 is not a SAAMI standard.  Nor is there a CIP standard for it.  Furthermore, SAAMI specifically warns against using 5.56 in .223 Rem chambers which ARE SAAMI standards.  And all new ammunition sold to .223 Rem standards must be sold as such with .223 REM on the case itself.

The other clue is "contract overrun".  That is doublespeak.  While there are contracts for the operator of Lake City AAP to produce a set quantity of ammo, the "overrun" is more of a fixed quantity, based on the machine's startup and shutdown frequency as these cycles govern how much scrap material is made,  It is from this scrap material that ATK is allowed to salvage that XM ammo comes from.  That and any ammo that is returned for salvage.

Another sticking point was the XM193 that came in NATO marked cases.  M193 was NEVER a NATO standard.  The current non-NATO cases coming in Federal-marked packaging is from the new "light packaging" program recently started for CONUS training, this saves the stripper clip and ammo can packaging costs but isn't NATO-approved.  And then there is the M855LFS "green ammo" which is in progress, effectively doubling the cost of ammo .  The proposed use of tungsten delayed that swirch and bismuth-tin is now the lead replacement.  Still expensive,

Quoted:
NO... not saying MK262 is junk.  What is the history and original goal of MK262?
It was to develop a more effective load for SOCOM.  What did they try to duplicate?
They tried to duplicate the high performance competition loads used by reloaders.

So now you are trying to copy a copy??  Why not just come up with something as good or better.
Or better yet make the original Match rounds they are copying.  Like Aero said, 100-200 fps ain't gonna matter.

I AM saying M855 & M193 are "junk" compared to what you are able to manufacture yourself with the
components you have at your disposal.  Military ammo is design to meet a specific standard that will
accomplish the task in a mass producible package as cheap as possible.

I've NEVER heard of anybody using M855 or M193 in a match.  If you don't think Match ammo is effective at
stopping an attacker... you are welcome to hold a target for me at 100 yards while you wear a Level III vest,
if you are able to walk up to the bench and collect my rifles, you can have them.  The OP wants to use this stuff
at 7 yards.  I say at 7 yards a .223 varmint grenade is gonna stop you in you tracks.

Quoted:
I read that link it seems to say that the ammo may, or may not meet Military Specifications, but does meet SAMMI Specifications, and the reason it's marked "for training use only" is not just because of cosmetics, but because it is inferior, but not so inferior as to be useless for training, so the conclusion I draw is that it's from Military Over Run components, and is not put through the same QC as the Military Ammunition, and may, or may not meet specifications.  That's not good enough for me.

Quoted:

I've NEVER heard of anybody using M855 or M193 in a match.  If you don't think Match ammo is effective at
stopping an attacker... you are welcome to hold a target for me at 100 yards while you wear a Level III vest,
if you are able to walk up to the bench and collect my rifles, you can have them.  The OP wants to use this stuff
at 7 yards.  I say at 7 yards a .223 varmint grenade is gonna stop you in you tracks.

Quoted:

I read that link it seems to say that the ammo may, or may not meet Military Specifications, but does meet SAMMI Specifications, and the reason it's marked "for training use only" is not just because of cosmetics, but because it is inferior, but not so inferior as to be useless for training, so the conclusion I draw is that it's from Military Over Run components, and is not put through the same QC as the Military Ammunition, and may, or may not meet specifications.  That's not good enough for me.

Quoted:


Here's your problem.  You have certain perceptions and beliefs about mil spec ammunition, maybe you've even shot some.  Maybe you've shot some into ballistic gel at different distances, or studied the various reports from Fackler, et al; I don't know and in the end it does matter anyway.

You're not a handloader.  You have no experience in the craft.  But you have perceptions and beliefs about this, too, and they're mostly wrong.  Mostly means 99.9% in your case.

Apparently there is no solution to your problem, except one.  You want mil spec ammunition because you think its the best available.  Get your check book out and start buying loaded ammunition when you find it for sale, that's the only way you'll be satisfied.

There is another solution, but that means you'll have to buy reloading equipment and components.

Quoted:



If you can find one example of any sort of failure of XM193 that would be news to many around here.  If it's not good enough, your only option is rolling your own.