View Full Version : Winchester Q3131 5.56mm 55gr FMJ any good?
zippygaloo
11-12-08, 12:53
What is your take on Winchester Q3131 5.56mm 55gr FMJ?
thopkins22
11-13-08, 01:23
It's not frangible, but it should fragment at normal defensive distances. I think most will suggest the q3131 over the bulk remington stuff for defensive purposes.
You should read(as I'm pretty sure the m193vs.m855 question is answered there already)/ask this question in the terminal ballistics forum here.
It's the duty round for my agency.
And I haven't had any problems with it yet.
Q3131 is not frangible, but it has a higher velocity than the M885, so it should fragment better.
Also, from speaking to people who have used a lot of M885 in real life, the round sometimes does not fragment down to the impact velocity of 2700 feet per second that it is often credited to. I *beleive* it was DocGKR who reported that the M855 seems to vary from group to group depending on the manufacturers and such.
zippygaloo
11-13-08, 02:50
What is the difference between frangible and fragmentation?
DANGER CLOSE
11-13-08, 04:28
same deal for my agency. good stuff from what i have seen at the range.
I have been shooting Q3131 for years and am sitting on a large volume of it, because I think it is high quality, non frangible ammo. I do feel that it is beeter than the Remington UMC. M.H.O.
I've read accounts of some agencies returning their Q3131 to win because of problems. The last two boxes I bought (retail) were ratty shit. Mixed headstamps, mixed years on those head stamps, and generally sloppy ammo.
I did get a malf out of the ammo, but I can't 100% blame the ammo. It's just my hunch.
Current production 3131 might be better.... I hope so at least.
I definitely wouldn't pick M855 for defensive ammo. If that's all I had, I'd use it. But it's one of the last choices on my list.
I'd buy the Speer Lawman M193 if I wanted a case of solid defensive bulk ammo. That stuff is really nice. It's basically the non reject overrun ammo in the XM193 line according to a guy here who talked to someone at ATK.
There is also a Q3131A from a different factory. I wonder if some of the bad reports can be attributed to that?
For defensive ammo, I like Hornady TAP in 75 gr..
There is also a Q3131A from a different factory. I wonder if some of the bad reports can be attributed to that?
I'm doubtful of this. 3131a had a Obamaesque reputation. I could probably sell my stash for $9 per box right now. :p
3131 is commonly sighted as problematic ammo by instructors that I've trained under. And it may be related to a certain production run or runs. But it was known for being too hot... blowing primers, etc.
Well, all I can tell you is that I have shot a boatload of Q3131 and not had any problems with it. This ammo was purchased 2003-2006 and like you say the issues may be related to certain production runs. But, I can only speak from my own experience, it has been stone cold reliable for me, or I would not use it.
Which instructors have said that there are problems with Q3131?
It's comes up in passing.... you know... those conversations that go on between drills. like...
Shooter: "So and so agency or class was getting a bunch of popped primers"
Instructor: "Oh yeah? Were they running some of that Q3131?"
I heard the Sheriff's Office instructor out here mention it. And then there's just the accounts I've read over the years on TOS. Often it involves non-5.56 chambers for sure. But the common factor is always 3131. As dopey as TOS can be, you can get a broad sample of how a given ammo works for shooters. If you weed out the retards who are running 5.56 in their Bushmaster Varminteer uppers and such, you can generally find a good amount of info on different ammos being used by shooters.
I don't know why but the 3131a Israeli stuff is just the standard. I've never heard a bad thing about 3131a. I can remember the guys on TOS getting all crapped out when word got out that 3131a was no longer being imported.
What is the difference between frangible and fragmentation?
Also, I was planning on shooting this Q3131 is a rock quarry in a couple weeks. Is it safe to do so in that environment? Does it ricochet easy? What should I stay away from with this ammo to keep it safe?
Frangible ammo is ammo designed to fragment (break apart into small pieces on impact) giving it less penetration - a good thing for urban environments when you won't want a stray round to penetrate someone's house and pop them in the noodle. Frangible ammo still can penetrate wallboard and such, but nothing like regular ammo will... When these guys use the word "fragmentation" - they are talking about the round breaking apart when it hits it's target, not holding together. When a round fragments, it makes a nasty wound, but the small bullet pieces generally cannot penetrate very deeply as they are so light that they do not carry energy with them. For a combat round, I prefer something heavier that will hold up through bone and tissue, doesn't make for as nasty a wound, but it's better assurance that you'll reach the vitals and stop someone. Controlled expansion rounds (such as the Nosler Partition, Trophy Bonded Bear Claw, and Gold Dot) are designed to penetrate, then expand after getting into the vitals, and expansion + penetration + non-fragmenting = dead target. They are designed to "hold together" through the target, and non fragment.
As for the rock quarry question... any round is going to be dangerous there, be sure of your surrounding and your backstops and have a good time. As for the 55gr. FMJ, I am personally NOT a fan of this, as they have a reputation for either ice-picking (making a straight hole through the target with minimal damage, like the Vietnam-era ordnance) or fragmenting at close range, resulting in an enemy not dying immediately and being able to continue to fight. They also can keyhole (spin end over end) when they hit something, which is better than ice-picking, but yeah...
I've shot a lot of Q3131, never had any problems. Accuracy was "semi-standard" getting around 1.5 MOA out of a rifle that can average .5 MOA, but it's a good training or plinking round. For combat purposes, I'll stick to my 70gr. Barnes TSX's for when I need penetration or hunting, and 69gr. OTM (BTHP) for everything else. Not cheap, but things usually don't ever require a second shot.
I don't know why but the 3131a Israeli stuff is just the standard. I've never heard a bad thing about 3131a. I can remember the guys on TOS getting all crapped out when word got out that 3131a was no longer being imported.
I have used and still have quite a bit of Q3131A and have not had any issues with the ither. Maybe the older manufactured stuff is better? I do take anything I read on the internet with a large grain of salt. Moreover, any info' that is not firsthand is suspect as well in my book. M.H.O.
I didn't keep track of the 3131 issues in great detail because I chose to shoot different ammo. But there were specific lot number(s) that were posted. I'm glad to hear that departements are using it now without issues.
Like I said... I haven't tried any in over a year, but the last sample I saw was nasty. If I come across any in the future, I'd try a couple of boxes again just to see what it's looking/shooting like.
zippygaloo
11-13-08, 13:48
I bought some locally at $8.69 per 20 round box plus no tax. Some of the rounds (none pictured) have a trace of greenish blue substance around the primers. I'm assuming this is waterproof sealant?
What can you tell from these photos?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3002/3028209116_abefe77a9f.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3244/3027375063_0ee95ba4c5.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3041/3027375385_2318a80d91.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3027375327_11ea1339f9.jpg
What can you tell from these photos?
That looks a lot better than the crap I last bought. $8.69 per box is a little high though.
Interesting that it's loaded in NATO brass, yet M193 isn't NATO.
Can you direct me to a place where I can find it cheaper? Thanks.
No. M193 is at about $8 per box. It is what it is. It's just too expensive.
My point on the NATO brass is that NATO ammo would have the SS109 bullet. But like XM193, Q3131 is loaded with 55 grain bullets in a NATO marked case. (apparently the newest XM193 ammo is no longer in NATO marked brass)
I just makes me think that Q3131 is WIN's version of XM193. Ammo made from Overrun components. And I don't say that as a negative. I use XM193 a lot.
Failure2Stop
11-13-08, 14:42
IThese sound the same to me. I don't see the difference. Please help me better understand. Thanks.
Frangible ammo is primarily designed to disintegrate upon impact with a steel target, reducing target damage and things like this-
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b200/decodeddiesel/X-Ray1.jpg
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b200/decodeddiesel/X-Ray2.jpg
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b200/decodeddiesel/X-Ray3.jpg
-Lifted from decodeddiesel's post about tagging himself- HERE (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=21461).
Frangible ammo, while lethal, is not generally intended for duty use.
Fragmentation is the breaking apart of the bullet as it travels through tissue, resulting in in the temporary cavity ripping and tearing more meat than if the bullet stayed in one piece. Fragmentation is the primary method to achieve a large permanent cavity with little bullets.
For detailed information refer to the Terminal Ballisitics forum, specifically-
5.56 mm Duty Loads (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19881)
Military Wound Ballistics History (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19937)
and Rifle Caliber Gelatin Test Assessment (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19877)
I was in a Jeff Gonzales carbine class a bit over a year ago where a Police Officer encountered a blown primer from a round of Q3131 in his Colt 6920. I have fired thousands of rounds of this ammo without a problem. It could have been a different manufacturer or different lot.
I bought some locally at $8.69 per 20 round box plus no tax. Is this a good deal?
I would say that the going rate on that is from $8.50 to $9.50 per box. so, you did fine.
These sound the same to me. I don't see the difference. Please help me better understand. Thanks.
As Failure2Stop said - even though they names sound similar, fragmentation is something that "happens"... Frangible is a "type" of bullet. See, the Q3131 bullets are loaded with 55gr. FMJ bullets, and they are NOT frangible, and are not designed to fragment, BUT, at close range, when the bullet is still moving fast, the bullets are so tiny, and moving so fast, they basically explode when they hit something hard. This makes for a nasty nasty hole, and a lot of tissue damage, but sometimes a bullet will fragment too early before it gets in deep enough to hit anything vital. You need a balance.
If you're looking for cheap practice ammo, ammoman.com had a killer deal on bulk M855 (62gr. SS109 steel core penetrator, "green tip", currently the basic U.S. military's round) a couple weeks ago, might still be going on. Natchez also had a good deal on some.
If you're wanting combat ammo, get something better than (X)M193 (55gr. FMJ) or M855 (62gr. SS109), IMHO.
zippygaloo
11-13-08, 15:22
...Q3131 bullets are loaded with 55gr. FMJ bullets, and they are NOT frangible, and are not designed to fragment.
What are 55gr. FMJ bullets designed to do?
...M855 (62gr. SS109 steel core penetrator, "green tip", currently the basic U.S. military's round)...If you're wanting combat ammo, get something better than (X)M193 (55gr. FMJ) or M855 (62gr. SS109).
If M855 is currently the U.S. Military round, why isn't it considered "combat" ammo? And why doesn't the military use something different if it's not considered "combat" ammo?
Also, here is what the Ammo Oracle has to say about the NATO headstamp (http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/hist_cross.html).
Fact: ...recent Lake City and Winchester M193 is loaded in cases marked with the NATO circle-cross. This is done simply to save money by having one production run of cases instead of two. M193 was never adopted by NATO; by the time NATO decided to standardize on 5.56mm, the SS-109/M855 ammo was available, and was adopted as the standard. M193 is still "Mil-Spec," it just isn't "NATO" spec.
decodeddiesel
11-13-08, 15:24
This Wikipedia entry says 5.56mm NATO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO).
Can you direct me to a place where I can find it cheaper? Thanks.
zippy you're probably not going to find it cheaper right now. I used to think M193 was a NATO round, but I have since been corrected. It IS loaded to 5.56 NATO specs but it's not a NATO round. If you're interested in learning more about terminal effects you're in luck because this site has a whole sub-forum dedicated to it.
decodeddiesel
11-13-08, 15:25
Frangible ammo is primarily designed to disintegrate upon impact with a steel target, reducing target damage and things like this-
-Lifted from decodeddiesel's post about tagging himself- HERE (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=21461).
Frangible ammo, while lethal, is not generally intended for duty use.
Fragmentation is the breaking apart of the bullet as it travels through tissue, resulting in in the temporary cavity ripping and tearing more meat than if the bullet stayed in one piece. Fragmentation is the primary method to achieve a large permanent cavity with little bullets.
For detailed information refer to the Terminal Ballisitics forum, specifically-
5.56 mm Duty Loads (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19881)
Military Wound Ballistics History (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19937)
and Rifle Caliber Gelatin Test Assessment (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19877)
How flattering.
If M855 is currently the U.S. Military round, why isn't it considered "combat" ammo? And why doesn't the military use something different if it's not considered "combat" ammo?
It is considered "combat" ammo, however, you aren't confined to the regulations that the military is, so you can choose something a lot more "in-humane"... if you understand what I mean. I would prefer M855 over M193 for a combat round, but that is my preference and my reasons, others may prefer the M193.. Much better performance against barriers and such... but if I were going into combat tomorrow and could choose my own ammo, like I said before, it would be 70gr. Barnes TSX or 69gr. SMK BTHP's. Just my 2 units.
I haven't used Q3131, but for ball ammo/range stuff the M193 is fine. I wouldn't run any Wolf, but that's me. For combat loads the M855 seems standard, other than the NSW/SOF utilizing Mk262 mod1. Black Hills manufactures the Mk262, which in civilian version is the 77gr. BTHP Sierra Match King, in either Blue or Red box. The Blue box round in appearance is new-like, and has a polished shine look whereas the true Mk262 looks like a hollow point M193 with its case being unpolished, and Spartan-like. Long range the 77gr and Mk262 performed very accurate in windy conditions. I can't say that about the 55gr.
I guess I'll have to try out a box of 3131. :)
zippygaloo
11-13-08, 16:53
I went with a 14.5" barrel to make it more easily maneuverable in tight situations and with the idea that it would be a shorter range gun, say out to 200 meters tops. If anything was beyond 200 meters I would remove myself from the area. Not to forget that as a civilian there would be no justification for shooting someone 200 meters away, let alone 100 meters. Most likely 25 meters and closer, or whatever the distance span on the interior of my house. With that in mind, the Ammo Oracle's opinion is that M193 is a better choice over M855 (http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_m193orm855.html) at these distances (inside 100 meters) because of high velocity and fragmentation. What is your response to these claims.
http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/ammoOraclePics/wund5.jpg
Failure2Stop
11-13-08, 19:38
M193 is good for training.
M855 was good for training when it was priced reasonably as long as you weren't shooting steel closer than 100 yards.
There is no reason to purchase M855 if you have to pay for your own ammo.
The only reason to purchase M193 is for training.
The reasons why and the alternatives are explained in the links I provided above.
The date stamp on the base of that ammo in the
photo's appears to be "80". I believe that in 1980 this ammo was NATO spec..
S/F
Tipy
So the Q3131A is no longer seen as a good round?
I remember in my early days at AR15.com when it was some of the most sought after stuff out there.
In early '04, people couldn't find enough of it.
It was manufactured in Israel if memory serves me right and we were seeing it come on the market in large amounts, supposedly because the US wasn't willing to use an Israeli manufactured ammo to fight a war against Muslims.
I remember it all being 5.56mm NATO spec ammunition and very hot.
It was probably at the end of that year or sometime in 05 when another type of Q3131 came onto the market and gave all of this ammo a bad reputation- it was always sold bulk in plastic bags and there were horrible reviews on it in several locations.
Maybe Q3131 was the good stuff and the A suffix was the bad?
What is your take on Winchester Q3131 5.56mm 55gr FMJ?
I hope its good as I'm sitting on 1500 rounds of it in my stash.
zippygaloo
11-13-08, 22:18
The date stamp on the base of that ammo in the
photo's appears to be "80". I believe that in 1980 this ammo was NATO spec..
S/F
Tipy
It's WCC 08 NOT WCC 80. It was manufactured this year, 2008.
decodeddiesel
11-13-08, 22:19
I hope its good as I'm sitting on 1500 rounds of it in my stash.
Rest assured it is fine ammo. It may not be the greatest 5.56 out there but it is good ammo.
So the Q3131A is no longer seen as a good round?
Who said that?
There is no reason to purchase M855 if you have to pay for your own ammo.
That's exactly my point. Especially at the prices it going for. It'd have to be much cheaper than M193 before I'd use it for anything. And I reload my own practice ammo, so I have NO use for it at all.
Mark- I recently read a thread, perhaps here, where someone was complaining about it. I can't remember the details but when I found this thread, I thought I'd ask...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.