I remember when NATO spec 55 gr FMJ (e.g., Q3131a/XM193) was considered pretty good, but now...

AR-15 » Ammunition

AR Sponsor:

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - I remember when NATO spec 55 gr FMJ (e.g., Q3131a/XM193) was considered pretty good, but now...

Posted: 10/15/2004 11:59:33 PM EDT

it doesn't seem to spark any significant interest with the advent of the heavier rounds and 6.8 SPC.

Does anyone feel undergunned if you were to have to deploy this round in a home defense situation?

And one ther thing, I was under the impression that NATO spec M193 would fragment out to about 150 yds, but I guess when the Oracle was made the BC used for calculating frag range was not quite right. It appears that the TRUE max fragmentation range for NATO spec M193 ammo is 105 yds for a 16" barrel. How crappy is that?

Alas, I wish I could afford the 6.8 SPC, but ammo is a killer.

And too bad the most effective ammo for the 5.56mm is so damn expensive (77 gr, 75 SMK, and 68 BH).

So, seriously, how bad in the terminal performance area IS the M193? Even Troy seems to "talk down" about M193. Didn't think I'd see THAT happen! LOL.

Posted: 10/16/2004 12:04:32 AM EDT

[#1]

I would not feel the least bit under armed with M193 in the vast majority of the scenarios I could possibly face.

Posted: 10/16/2004 1:20:11 AM EDT

[#2]

I would never feel undergunned with XM193 in a short range situation (1-200 yards)., as long as I was not taking on a tank or trying to defeat thick barriers.

Posted: 10/16/2004 6:40:50 AM EDT

[#3]

Simply upgrade to an AR10.

Posted: 10/16/2004 7:15:40 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Does anyone feel undergunned if you were to have to deploy this round in a home defense situation?

The myth of M193 having shortcomings is perpetuated by Gays. I feel much better armed with M193 than some wildcat chambering that you can't even get fucking ammo for anyway.

Posted: 10/16/2004 7:50:44 AM EDT

[#5]

No worries at all.

Posted: 10/16/2004 8:53:13 AM EDT

[#6]

XM193

RELIABLE Frag range, 2700 fps cut-off (should exhibit frag under worst conditions)

20.0"; 130 yd
16.0"; 105 yd
14.5"; 90 yd

MAX. Frag range, 2500 fps cut-off (likely to frag down to here, but don't count on it)

20.0"; 190 yd
16.0"; 165 yd
14.5"; 145 yd

Frag. range will increase slightly if temp. > 59 F, or decrease if less than that.

Posted: 10/16/2004 11:08:03 AM EDT

[#7]

The XM193 will always be considered one of the best combat rounds in my book. I don't feel the least bit undergunned using it for self defense/offense.

Try finding some MK262 or better yet some 6.8mm SPC ammo.

If you consider the price and availablity, XM193 is hard to beat...

Posted: 10/16/2004 12:33:38 PM EDT

[#8]

XM193 is an excellent cartridge. It is available, it is reasonalbly priced, and it is effective. You just can't go wrong.

Posted: 10/16/2004 2:21:41 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
it doesn't seem to spark any significant interest with the advent of the heavier rounds and 6.8 SPC.

Does anyone feel undergunned if you were to have to deploy this round in a home defense situation?

And one ther thing, I was under the impression that NATO spec M193 would fragment out to about 150 yds, but I guess when the Oracle was made the BC used for calculating frag range was not quite right. It appears that the TRUE max fragmentation range for NATO spec M193 ammo is 105 yds for a 16" barrel. How crappy is that?

Alas, I wish I could afford the 6.8 SPC, but ammo is a killer.

And too bad the most effective ammo for the 5.56mm is so damn expensive (77 gr, 75 SMK, and 68 BH).

So, seriously, how bad in the terminal performance area IS the M193? Even Troy seems to "talk down" about M193. Didn't think I'd see THAT happen! LOL.

I would say that the M193 is in the top 75 percentile of rounds. Its easy to do better but its much easier to do worse.

M193 is my backup home defense round.

Posted: 10/16/2004 2:56:08 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
It appears that the TRUE max fragmentation range for NATO spec M193 ammo is 105 yds for a 16" barrel. How crappy is that?

This is probably meaningless but I'm going to post it anyway.

Last weekend I nailed a jackrabbit at 112 yards with xm193 and a 16" bbl. Fragmentation was no less violent than at 50 or 75 yards.

Ok, so rabbits aren't people but you're still going to get better results than a .224" hole beyond 105 yards.

Posted: 10/16/2004 8:28:52 PM EDT

[#11]

55gr. stuff is great stuff. I keep plenty of mags loaded with it. The first rounds will 77gr. but after that 55 will do the job.....

Posted: 10/16/2004 9:08:39 PM EDT

[#12]

Keep in mind that good COM hits with any centerfire rifle round are going to be life changing events for the recipient. Most militaries have been deploying non-fragmenting FMJ rounds for most of the 20th century and they still do pretty well.

The fact that your M193 is fragmenting at closer ranges is just an added bonus. If you want more range, or more fragmentation looking into some of the 68gr or 75gr match hollow points or the 77gr Mk262 from Black Hills. The Mk262 is too expensive for me, but I keep some of the 75gr on hand for my house gun load.

Posted: 10/16/2004 11:26:14 PM EDT

[#13]

Undergunned?

No.

Awareness, Tactics, training, planned response, reliable weapon/ammo combination all are layers that must be challenged before the terminal effects of any bullet.

I have my stuff well wrapped, and to the best I can, before relying on some magical properties of any lump of cold lead and cupronickle.

If the Magic is the ingredient that saves my worthless hide, I will be gratefull.
But I ain't planning on it.

The biggest variable is me.
I am convinced that the biggest variable is the one to concentrate upon controlling.

M193 is proven as a constant, as are other loads.

Things have gotten much too confusing ever since we gave up the stone axe as a primary defense weapon.

Possibly the background noise has gotten the better of us?

S-28

Posted: 10/17/2004 3:30:25 PM EDT

[#14]

It still is considered good, it's just that better is now available.
Interest always migrates to the new toys.

Posted: 10/17/2004 10:38:03 PM EDT

[#15]

Give me my Go To AR and a couple hundred rounds of XM193 and I OWN a 400y Dia circle around my Ass. Underguned? No Send me your unwanted XM!

Posted: 10/18/2004 3:15:05 AM EDT

[#16]

It's still the ammo I stock in large quantities for large numbers of flesh eating zombies.

Posted: 10/18/2004 9:13:16 AM EDT

[#17]

I don't feel undergunned with a 5.45, so Q3131A rocks!

I'm poor, so I use Q3131A as my regular home defense and practice round. If the SHTF the Mk262 comes out of the can for ultimate deathray effect. If I need more penetration or range the scoped .308 rifle comes out of the safe. It's all about having options. It will not send you to the poor house to buy a few hundred rounds of uber ammo and putting it away for a rainy day.

On other fronts, now that the .50 cal 1911 is out I do not feel undergunned with the .45 version. It still works just fine.

Posted: 10/18/2004 12:46:16 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Does anyone feel undergunned if you were to have to deploy this round in a home defense situation?

Kinda like some of the guys that I deer hunt with... They think the need the latest whiz bang super 300 Magnum to kill deer with, and make snide remarks about me still using my .243 and 25/06. The deer never seem to notice that I am using such an "underpowered" cartridge. They just keep going down.

Posted: 10/18/2004 12:48:07 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Does anyone feel undergunned if you were to have to deploy this round in a home defense situation?

The myth of M193 having shortcomings is perpetuated by Gays. I feel much better armed with M193 than some wildcat chambering that you can't even get fucking ammo for anyway.

As always markm and I are in agreement. I bet he would be shooting that out of a Colt too.

Posted: 10/18/2004 2:50:15 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
I don't feel undergunned with a 5.45, so Q3131A rocks!

Man, I hate when I can't tell my AK from my AR.

Posted: 10/18/2004 5:50:34 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't feel undergunned with a 5.45, so Q3131A rocks!

Man, I hate when I can't tell my AK from my AR.

If it is burning your support hand you know it is an AK

Posted: 10/18/2004 10:44:46 PM EDT

[#22]

I figured something out: I think about this stuff WAY too much.

Seriously, though, I guess I'm just a little OCD when it comes to this kinda stuff.

Posted: 10/19/2004 5:36:26 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It appears that the TRUE max fragmentation range for NATO spec M193 ammo is 105 yds for a 16" barrel. How crappy is that?

This is probably meaningless but I'm going to post it anyway.

Last weekend I nailed a jackrabbit at 112 yards with xm193 and a 16" bbl. Fragmentation was no less violent than at 50 or 75 yards.

Ok, so rabbits aren't people but you're still going to get better results than a .224" hole beyond 105 yards until the bullet hasn't enough velocity to yaw at all.

Velocity has nothing to do with the bullet yawing. It will yaw at pretty much any velocity, even subsonic. It simply is not traveling fast enough to tear itself apart as it yaws.

Posted: 10/19/2004 10:27:20 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
it doesn't seem to spark any significant interest with the advent of the heavier rounds and 6.8 SPC.

Does anyone feel undergunned if you were to have to deploy this round in a home defense situation?

And one ther thing, I was under the impression that NATO spec M193 would fragment out to about 150 yds, but I guess when the Oracle was made the BC used for calculating frag range was not quite right. It appears that the TRUE max fragmentation range for NATO spec M193 ammo is 105 yds for a 16" barrel. How crappy is that?

Alas, I wish I could afford the 6.8 SPC, but ammo is a killer.

And too bad the most effective ammo for the 5.56mm is so damn expensive (77 gr, 75 SMK, and 68 BH).

So, seriously, how bad in the terminal performance area IS the M193? Even Troy seems to "talk down" about M193. Didn't think I'd see THAT happen! LOL.

Not everyone shoots for 'terminal performance'...

77gr in the 200-600yd range is much easier to shoot accurately...

Posted: 10/20/2004 2:08:05 PM EDT

[#25]

As others have said, M193-class ammo does quite well. It's just that we now have ammo that is considerably better, *especially* from barrels shorter than 14.5". M193 didn't get any worse, but for many of us, our expectations have increased. Before the heavy OTM bullets or 6.8mm existed, M193 was about as good as it got for ARs or 5.56 weapons. Today, we can do much better, and that's a GOOD thing. When your life, or the lives of a loved one, is on the line, you want every possible advantage to help you end the fight quickly.

This is a natural progression. In the 60's, people were thrilled with muscle cars that had a lot of power, even though those cars handled horribly in anything other than straight-line driving. Despite their power, a car with much less horsepower but better suspension and handling would eat them alive on a road course.

Today, we have many cars that have as much or more horsepower as the muscle car heyday, but today's cars also handle very well, get better mileage, have a tiny fraction of the emissions, and are far safer in collisions. If someone tried to sell new cars built like the muscle cars of old, they'd sell very poorly, because our expectations have increased.

-Troy

Posted: 10/20/2004 7:34:18 PM EDT

[#26]

I dont know Troy, You might wanna stick to the ammo testing thing

If Plymouth sold new HemiCudas agian Id be the first one in line

....Udog

Posted: 10/20/2004 10:03:18 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
I dont know Troy, You might wanna stick to the ammo testing thing If Plymouth sold new HemiCudas agian Id be the first one in line....Udog

Yes, because you have a sentimental attachment to it. Now, if they made a Pontiac Grand Am or some other modern-looking car with the weight, suspension, brakes, tires, and engines of old, would you buy one?

-Troy

Posted: 10/21/2004 6:23:30 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
...Today, we have many cars that have as much or more horsepower as the muscle car heyday, but today's cars also handle very well, get better mileage, have a tiny fraction of the emissions, and are far safer in collisions. If someone tried to sell new cars built like the muscle cars of old, they'd sell very poorly, because our expectations have increased.

Brilliant and on target!

Posted: 10/21/2004 2:38:07 PM EDT

[#29]

For what my limited-experience, "new guy" opinion is worth, I've got no qualms with the 55-grain fmj if it's loaded to full 5.56 specs. Same bullet loaded as ".223" just isn't the same proposition. I use a lot more Q3131A than XM193, simply becase that's what dealers around here stock.

On duty, I carry a 14.5" Bushy. My first mag up is a twenty of 55-grain federal ballistic tip, with extra mags of 55-grain Rem sp (I know, "low-brow" ammo, but the factory is in my jurisdiction and I get a heck of a price...), and one mag of 55-grain Q3131A. The ballistic tips and rem sp's, I chose largely to reduce penetration risk, as our "encounters" around here are usually with feral dogs, downed deer and domestic animals, and always at short-to-medium range; never over 150 yards.

At that distance, I trust any of these loads to protect me and others from anything I'm going to encounter, short of a bear.

The multitude of loads is to offer various options if time permits. Feral dog in a semi-rural area = 55-grain ballistic tips to minimize overpenetration, etc. Vehicle issue = fmj's (although a heavier fmj would admittedly be closer to ideal)

If I were using a 20 or 24 inch gun, the ammo choices would likely be somewhat different, but with this short a barrel in this light a caliber, I like the extra energy that the 55-60 grainers offer.

JMO (and worth every penny you paid for it... :) )

Posted: 10/21/2004 4:54:18 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It appears that the TRUE max fragmentation range for NATO spec M193 ammo is 105 yds for a 16" barrel. How crappy is that?

This is probably meaningless but I'm going to post it anyway.

Last weekend I nailed a jackrabbit at 112 yards with xm193 and a 16" bbl. Fragmentation was no less violent than at 50 or 75 yards.

Ok, so rabbits aren't people but you're still going to get better results than a .224" hole beyond 105 yards until the bullet hasn't enough velocity to yaw at all.

Velocity has nothing to do with the bullet yawing. It will yaw at pretty much any velocity, even subsonic. It simply is not traveling fast enough to tear itself apart as it yaws.

my bad

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - I remember when NATO spec 55 gr FMJ (e.g., Q3131a/XM193) was considered pretty good, but now...

AR-15 » Ammunition

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us