karl
New Member
Posts: 10 
|
Post by karl on May 29, 2016 15:36:02 GMT -5
Preferably from guys that have shot meat with them, would you say that the terminal effect of the heavier hollowpoints (69-77 grain) exceeds the penetration cabability of the green tip ammo enough to justify the cost increase.
This is "for use" ammo, not range ammo.
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiewouldclearhot on May 29, 2016 17:16:46 GMT -5
depends... for shtf, i honestly like 55 grain because of cost/performance. 62gr green tip is great for defeating light barriers, but kinda sucks in soft tissue. FWIW (not much) CAG and the tier 1 guys run barnes 77 gr HP, but they arent looking for fragmentation, due to short barrels and close distances. my opinion, you'll be well served with M193 and M855, maybe a magazine or two of M262 OTM, but Id feel fine with good M193 feeding my rifle. also, IMO, more is better, and you can afford more M193. here is a really helpful site: www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_16/503947_AR15_Ammo_Forum_FAQ.html |
|
|
|
Post by UnforseenWeather on May 29, 2016 19:03:58 GMT -5
I recently discovered an 85 gr. 5.56mm Barnes load. That's no typo, 85 gr. Mag length match round. Got to find out more!
|
|
|
|
Post by waffenmacht on May 29, 2016 20:36:56 GMT -5
I recently discovered an 85 gr. 5.56mm Barnes load. That's no typo, 85 gr. Mag length match round. Got to find out more! Probably wont feed in a standard rifle...due to longer bullet length, but let us know what you find out |
|
|
|
Post by waffenmacht on May 29, 2016 20:46:07 GMT -5
Preferably from guys that have shot meat with them, would you say that the terminal effect of the heavier hollowpoints (69-77 grain) exceeds the penetration cabability of the green tip ammo enough to justify the cost increase. This is "for use" ammo, not range ammo. Penetration capability, no. But that's hardly a measure of terminal effectiveness. Typically M855 is pretty good and shooting through steel helmets. After that, the benefits stop. There are two different directions 5.56 ammo manufactures have gone. 1) light, fast round that is fairly unstable and will yaw and fragment when it comes into contact with soft tissue. Designed for 1/14 twist barrel, then 1/12, but still work pretty good in 1/7. M193 fits into this category. 2) Heavy round sent through tighter twist barrel (like 1/7) the will retain its stability and weight when entering soft tissue. Great penetration..these are the popular 77gr OTM's, and 75gr AMAX, OTM, etc. You really have to match your bullet with your barrel twist, length, and distance shooting for max effectiveness. But ANY of the rounds listed above are more effective against stopping soft tissue threats than M855. |
|
|
|
Post by UnforseenWeather on May 29, 2016 22:34:27 GMT -5
I recently discovered an 85 gr. 5.56mm Barnes load. That's no typo, 85 gr. Mag length match round. Got to find out more! Probably wont feed in a standard rifle...due to longer bullet length, but let us know what you find out Evidently this bullet was specifically designed to weigh more and still be mag length. Requires a fast twist but beyond that, standars rifles can shoot it. |
|
|
|
Post by eddiewouldclearhot on May 30, 2016 8:12:33 GMT -5
id be interested in seeing some gel test results and hearing about the reliability. 85 is a fat pill, but if it works could be devastating.
if you can find it, i really like 62 gr non-green tip loads. there are a bunch out there, but my rifle tends to shoot them better, and you get more terminal energy on target.
|
|
karl
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by karl on May 30, 2016 8:31:12 GMT -5
.......... You really have to match your bullet with your barrel twist, length, and distance shooting for max effectiveness. But ANY of the rounds listed above are more effective against stopping soft tissue threats than M855. ........... To be specific, I'll be using a 20" barrel with 1:7 twist. Standard A4 configuration. I'd like something that would be useful in that it will be able to tear through a car (older cars, you can push a screwdriver through the skin of a new car), and still tear that ass up when it hits flesh. I have a shitload of M193, but hear that it can be inconsistent in flesh, though I shouldn't have problems with the high velocity from a 20". So I was looking into something more effective. From the sounds of it M855 is great for shooting through thin mild steel (like older cars) but pretty well sucks balls for everything else. So I'm wondering if the heavier OTM rounds would be worth the extra $100/1000 or just stick with M193. |
|
|
|
Post by UnforseenWeather on May 30, 2016 9:33:32 GMT -5
A bit more can be found on this load in the new Guns and Ammo "Book of the AR15"...
MV: 2518FPS, 1203 FT LB.
300 yd: 1914 FPS, 691 FT LB.
600 yd: 1413 FPS, 377 FT LB.
Note: at 600 yards this load has more energy than a 1911 shooting ball has at the muzzle (352 FT LB.)
It does require a 1:8 or faster twist. And it is *pricey*, but I like the numbers I'm seeing so far. Well, all of the except for the price, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiewouldclearhot on May 30, 2016 10:05:51 GMT -5
55 gr isnt sexy, but it works. there are plenty of gel tests on youtube. At the end of the day, EVERY bullet is inconsistent, there is no mathematical formula for how a bullet will react with it strikes a target. some to better than others, but theres no such thing as a "magic bullet". for example, any bi-metal bullet is a poor choice in 5.56.
that said, with a 20 in barrel, you are getting the best performance out of any 5.56 round available, so you have that going for you.
as for your car scenario above, 55 gr probably wont do the trick, BUT if you are doing fire and maneuver, thats where it shines. Again, you can have more of it for the same price, and it'll do a fantastic job of pinning someone behind a car while your buddy maneuvers. Just a thought.
there are about a million 5.56 loads out there, and the heavy 77 bullets definitely do well. they stabilize better and being heavier deliver more energy. everything comes at a cost though, which is reduced fragmentation (thats why heavy bullets use HP tips or empty noses)
62 grain green tip will actually work really well for the scenario described above. and honestly, it's not the best in soft tissue, but it will get the job done, considering shot placement.
unforseen weather- those muzzle velocities make me nervous, 2400 being the fragmentation threshold. Hopefully it makes up for it in expansion.
|
|
|
|
Post by UnforseenWeather on May 30, 2016 10:31:52 GMT -5
Every bullet has a different frag threshold, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiewouldclearhot on May 30, 2016 11:39:00 GMT -5
good point, but i believe the velocity required to fragment is roughly the same across all 5.56 loadings. I'm completely guessing though.
From the Ammo Oracle (posted above) 5.56 (both M855 and M193 need 2700 fps to fragment reliably.
some notes:
Distance to 2700 fps
20" Barrel
16" Barrel
14.5" Barrel
11.5" Barrel
M193
190-200m
140-150m
95-100m
40-45m
M855
140-150m
90-95m
45-50m
12-15m
gonna hit google hard with that one, but i'm inferring that the 2700 fps thresh hold applies to all since it applies to both rounds here. again, i dont know, just making (educated) guesses.
|
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on May 30, 2016 16:05:26 GMT -5
Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but that reads like a longer barrel (20") reaches 2700fps in a longer distance (190-200m) than it does out of a short barrel.
I know once you go past a certain barrel length it starts impeding velocity because of friction, but this seems... wrong. If I -AM- reading it right, then that info is saying two military rounds will not perform at their most effectively till at least 150m out of an M16.
Once again; I might be being a retard, but I can't see where unless the barrel lengths are listed backwards.
|
|
|
|
Post by UnforseenWeather on May 30, 2016 16:49:28 GMT -5
Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but that reads like a longer barrel (20") reaches 2700fps in a longer distance (190-200m) than it does out of a short barrel. I know once you go past a certain barrel length it starts impeding velocity because of friction, but this seems... wrong. If I -AM- reading it right, then that info is saying two military rounds will not perform at their most effectively till at least 150m out of an M16. Once again; I might be being a retard, but I can't see where unless the barrel lengths are listed backwards. It's a strange inverse proportion, Panzer. The fragmentation threshold for those two rounds is 2700 fps and applies to ranges of the maximum (190-200m) and closer. Beyond that the FPS drops and fragmentation is less reliable - the bullet will simply make holes in the intended target. And since we're talking .224" holes, and not .308" holes, people get hinky about the frag threshold. Fragmentation threshold is not necessarily the best indicator of a round's performance. It's nice when it does it, as it adds more wounding potential. I'm just an internet commando, but from everything I've read that people who do know what they're talking about have written, holes are holes. Meaning, if you can put a .224" hole in someone 400, 600, or 800 meters away, is going to degrade their ability to prosecute the fight against you. I know if I was pursuing someone and got a .224" through and through in me, I'd probably call it off.  |
|
|
|
Post by Erick on May 30, 2016 19:08:23 GMT -5
Preferably from guys that have shot meat with them, would you say that the terminal effect of the heavier hollowpoints (69-77 grain) exceeds the penetration cabability of the green tip ammo enough to justify the cost increase. This is "for use" ammo, not range ammo. Almost anything is better than Green Tip.. however a few words about it anyway: I do not like the 62gr LAP ( aka "penetrator" aka "Green Tip" aka M855 aka XM855) ammo for several reasons: - All other things being equal, it is generally less accurate than equivalent ammo w/o a penetrator. This difference can be large enough at the higher end of normal Infantry engagement distances (100+m) to cause some misses. - It has poor effect on tissue. - Even non penetrator rounds penetrate plenty for our purposes ( windshields, car/truck doors/ drywall, steel doors) - It's significantly more expensive than many good choices. This is because as it is popular on the market (why? well few folks ever conduct a proper performance/cost/trade-off analysis and anything that's "MilSPEC" is credentialed to most ) therefore does not make a good stash and cache round. Also my philosophy of use mandates that I field Ammunition which is affordable enough to stash in operationally significant quantities. So the 75/77 gr rounds are out of the picture for me. As for the 69 gr match HP from PPU that is an EXCELLENT round and affordable enough IMHO (49-55 cents a round) to stash a certain amount for applications where accuracy is at a premium. For example when I field my team's DMR (Designated Marksman Rifle) I wear different rig which includes a couple of pouches with 20 round mags filled with 69 gr match..to be switched out when needed.... the rest of the time I plan to run the regular ammo out of the 30 round mags in the the same weapon. I refer you to this comparison for the rest of my comments: uwgear.proboards.com/thread/1102/ericks-review-commercial-ammo-ar15s |
|
