View Full Version : Ammo Recommendations
Clearly some of you have devoted a great deal of time to evaluation of ammo.
I have had some very bad experiences with a case of factory reloads.
I am really looking for two kinds of Ammo. One for practice and one for combat situations. The practice ammo should be good enough to be run for defense in an emergency situation.
I have been shopping around and have been looking at the following:
IMI 193C for practice, 1200 round case
Federal Lake City XM193 for practice, 1000 round case
Hornady TAP LEO .223 75gr for Combat/Defense
Black Hills .223 75gr hollow point
I’d like to standardize on a couple of ammo types to keep my weapon/ammo/practice situation stable.
I am very interested in your thoughts on practice and defense ammo selection.
Thank you.
Picking something in the middle goes half-assed both ways. You've got training ammo that is too expensive, and defensive ammo that isn't all that great. Dr. Facker and Roberts have commented pretty extensively on how unreliable all FMJ(M193 and M855) loads are in 5.56 when it comes to fragmentation.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=26905
As M16/M4 barrel lengths have gotten shorter, and twist rates have increased, so to has FMJ fragmentation reliabilty. OTM loads are a little more reliable, but they still have a margin of error when it comes to effective fragmentation. The Pennsylvania shootout where the perp took multiple 75gr TAP his with minimal fragmentation is a good example. Overall, fragging is not a reliable means of bullet wounding. Here's a great read on military ammo types, and why it is VERY important to use good quality ammo partcularly in the 5.56:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=32989
I feel that the best solution is to buy the cheapest stuff you can find for training(provided it doesn't damage your rifle), and getting a decent quality defensive load. If you want something military, the USMC MK318 would probably be the best all around defensive load as it has a copper core for better barrier penetration and is OTM for decent fragging. However, expansion bullets STILL offer the best all around performance in terms of barrier penetration and terminal effects. I personally like Speer Gold Dots and have taken a few deer with them. Here's Doc's list of good loads:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19881
Other newer calibers like the 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel are a little better engineered overall which allows them to have better, and more reliable terminal effects. So, in theory you could go a little cheaper on your defensive ammo and still have a good margin of error. Not so much with the 5.56, so get some good quality ammo for it.
Thanks.
I was talking with an FBI agent who carries a carbine regularly; he said he only shoots Black Hills and Hornady. His weapons functioned reliably and he was very satisfied with those brands.
I thought the IMI ammo was pretty low priced with 1200 rounds for about 300 dollars. I will avoid all remanufactured and the steel cased eastern bloc ammo just from personal experience and what others tell me their experiences were.
After reading those links - it makes you wonder if 5.56 is as good as it is cracked up to be. When I was a LE officer, I carried a 7.62 rifle and a shotgun in my car. My brother who is a senior Marine Officer with quite a bit of combat experience says they normally are firing multiple shots at a target. Perhaps that’s today’s doctrine.
Still interested in more information. Brands and types that have worked for you.
After reading those links - it makes you wonder if 5.56 is as good as it is cracked up to be.
40 years of extensive military and domestic service have show that it works fine for its intended role, and with the right ammunition. Try to make it a 400+ yard rifle, use it in too short of a barrel, and/or use poorly designed ammo and you're asking for problems. There is no indication that the US military is going to anything else in the near future. The doubts that may have been expressed with Somilia and Afghanistan about the 5.56 have been cleared up once appropriate ammunition was utilized in the M4 platform. As you increase caliber size, and powder charge, you of course improve terminal effects capability. So, of course 6.8 and 6.5 are better than 5.56..........and 7.62 NATO is better than 6.8 and 6.5. All of these calibers cause "effective" damage to the human body with the right ammo. If reliably expanding or fragging ammo is not used, even the larger calibers suck. I believe it was Pat Rogers who shot a gook with his M14 six times before he decided to fall down. Think the AK-47 in 7.62x39 is any more effective? Without ammunition that fragments or expands, it does little more than poke .30 caliber holes. Take a look at the old Stockton shooting where the gunman shot 35 people(mostly kids who are more fragile to GSW), and 30 of them lived. The gunman was using the common M47 FMJ military load and unless it struck vital areas it did little damage:
http://www.uthr.org/SpecialReports/Martin%20Fackler,%20Stockton%20case.txt
You need a significant wounding mechanism for any caliber to be effective. The best are expansion, and fragmentation. There is no all around "better" assault rifle cartridge in the west at this time other than the 5.56. Once you factor in training costs, superior defensive ammunition availability, available shooting platforms, available accessories, and ease of shooting rapidly and accurately the 5.56 is the best choice.
Thanks.
I was talking with an FBI agent who carries a carbine regularly; he said he only shoots Black Hills and Hornady. His weapons functioned reliably and he was very satisfied with those brands.
Most top tier AR-15s will function fine with just about every type of .223 and 5.56 ammo on the market. Functioning is fine, but that doesn't determine out effective it is. The FBI report on the PA shooting showed that the 75gr TAP was not as effective as expected, and it did not meet the FBI standard for auto glass penetration. Therefore, not recommended for serious duty use.
My brother who is a senior Marine Officer with quite a bit of combat experience says they normally are firing multiple shots at a target. Perhaps that’s today’s doctrine.
Still interested in more information. Brands and types that have worked for you.
ALL rifle training, whether military or LE emphasizes multiple hits on your target. Whether you are mounting a M240(7.62 NATO), a M4, a MK24 rifle,.....etc. The single most determinate factor in rapidly stopping someone, is rapidly damaging vital areas of their body as possible. If you miss that vital area with the first shot, then you follow up and continue shooting until the threat is gone. Also, comparing a carbine system(5.56), to a designated marksmen system(7.62) is not apples to apples as the 7.62 system has been accurized and the shooter has the comfort of a position of advantage on his target. The vast majority of 5.56 shooters overseas are in a carbine setup and do not have the same level of targeting precision as the 7.62 shooter. However, just one more example of the caliber not mattering that much..........SOCOM has documented a number of long range single shot kills with the MK18 in 5.56 from ranges as long as 600 meters. Why did it work so well?.......they were using the right ammo, and they were able to hit the target accurately in vital areas of the body.
The primary reason why you see more shots fired with a 5.56 than a larger caliber in a shooting is because there is usually a widow of time between when the badguy receives the damage, and when he responds by falling down. It takes several seconds on average if the first shot is a lethal one, and most 5.56 shooters can get at least 5 rounds in the target in that time frame. The only time someone will drop instantly after being hit is if they take a central nervous system hit, or they voluntarily drop(OMG!!....I've been shot!!!). Most 7.62 NATO rifles are not as quick on target engagement due to the weight and awkwardness of most large caliber rifles, and the increased recoil slows down their rate of accurate fire. This is a common observation in the field. It is also common with officer involved shootings between the officers shooting 9mm, .40, and .45. The 9mm got the job done in the first shot or two, but the officer was trained to keep shooting until the badguy was on the ground.....so he used up 15+1 rounds until his slide locked back. The .40 or .45 shooter also got the job done in the first few rounds, but he kept firing(slower rate) until the threat was gone. Final score.......9mm shooter got off more rounds in the engagement, but all calibers effectively ended the threat in the first couple of shots.
Thanks for the excellent perspective. It makes sense that ammo selection would be so important with such a light round.
I am looking at those Black Hills 77gr.
One nice thing with the 5.56 over the 7.62 is the lower cost of practice rounds. I'll be shopping for some good training ammo soon.
I always have had confidence in the 168gr BTHP 7.62 for duty use. I do have to say firing the M4 type carbine is a lot of fun.
It's hard to understand why an agency, or military unit selects a certain piece of equipment over another unless you can put yourself in their shoes. Unless you enlist, you can't get a field perspective. Currently, 5.56 is still the the standard, however 7.62 NATO does have a strong role in Afghanistan in a designated marksmen role(not general combat). You can come closer to understanding why one is used over another if you train like them. Being a Federal officer myself, and ex USMC, I can tell you right now that the vast majority of domestic LE are undertrained in the use of the rifle and carbine. Most guys fresh out of boot camp have a better understanding of tactics and carbine use than most 10 year LE veterans. This is often evident in numerous shootings involving a ex military vets who decide to engage LE with a carbine.
If you haven't already done so, I strongly suggest getting into a Larry Vickers or Pat Rogers carbine class. Good training should ALWAYS come before you select a piece of equipment to use. Once you get into running the gun with guys who know what they are doing, it becomes evident right away why the 5.56 remains the caliber of choice. You can run the 7.62 in a "predictable" environment well, but once you get out of the comfort of predictable scenarios the 7.62 shooters really lag behind the 5.56 shooters. The same goes for pistol shooters who run larger calibers once the scenarios become unpredictable and and start pushing the limits.
Even in this piece by Major Ehrhart US Army, in longer ranged shooting the superior setup would be a lighter caliber that is more controllable and allows for better hit probability than 7.62 NATO:
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2010/03/08/taking-back-the-infantry-half-kilometer/
Now, the 5.56 has some trouble fufilling this long ranged role, but a 5.56 caliber cartridge designed with long range in mind would work well. The 5.56 NATO is designed for good terminal effects at velocity ranges under 300 meters.
I think you are right. Although I've been out of LE for 8 years, I can tell you in my department we trained mostly with handgun and shotgun. Rifles were optional except for the Tac Team.
However in Montana where hunting and shooting is a way of life - we had some amazing rifle shooters on patrol.
I do want to take one of those carbine courses. My brother and I have been planning on doing one for a year or more. I am sure that Larry Vickers is a great teacher. My brother wants to go to Gryphon Group because he knows the people.
not sure where that Larry thing came from. auto fill i suppose
Snake Plissken
09-19-11, 12:44
Wolf
Wolf
oh and...Wolf
Stuff works just fine and is very inexpensive.
Wolf may function in some rifles, but, it has been observed in higher round count courses that it will tend to be more problematic than brass-cased ammo. The theory is that the coating on the casing becomes sticky due to hot chambers, and thus impedes extraction.
You can look at AARs for several courses for examples of this. Pat Rogers goes as far as to ban the use of Wolf in any of his T&E guns.
YMMV.
-Adam
PA PATRIOT
10-07-11, 00:56
Wolf may function in some rifles, but, it has been observed in higher round count courses that it will tend to be more problematic than brass-cased ammo. The theory is that the coating on the casing becomes sticky due to hot chambers, and thus impedes extraction.
You can look at AARs for several courses for examples of this. Pat Rogers goes as far as to ban the use of Wolf in any of his T&E guns.
YMMV.
-Adam
With full auto guns were you smoke the barrel I would say there is a chance of it occurring but I have shot many cases of Wolf during training (Semi-Auto) and the rifle was quite hot during rapid fire drills but I never had a round stick. Everyones mileage may vary but I have never seen this occur over the years while attending training courses.
I have used IMI M193 for range use and it has been very good. I bought a case from Wideners and plan to buy more. Wideners also sells IMI M855 if you are interested.
Clearly some of you have devoted a great deal of time to evaluation of ammo.
Well, not me, though I've read up a lot here. I'll share my thoughts anyway...
I have had some very bad experiences with a case of factory reloads.
For starters, except Black Hills' "remanufactured" ammo and my own reloads, I won't buy or use "reloaded" ammunition. Period.
I won't buy or use steel-cased ammo, either, but that seems to make me weird.
I am really looking for two kinds of Ammo. One for practice and one for combat situations. The practice ammo should be good enough to be run for defense in an emergency situation.
I have been shopping around and have been looking at the following:
IMI 193C for practice, 1200 round case
Federal Lake City XM193 for practice, 1000 round case
Hornady TAP LEO .223 75gr for Combat/Defense
Black Hills .223 75gr hollow point
This makes perfect sense to me, and in fact I'm doing about the same...
Military surplus makes for affordable but good (reloadable) practice ammo, and in a pinch it's good enough to shoot at bad guys or zombies (certainly better than underpowered steel-cased ammo).
Given unobtainability and/or prohibitive expense of 5.56 TAP, the various .223 75gr. options seem like a good choice.
My experience with factory reloads was very bad (rifle blew up in my face) so I am kind of wary of any super cheap ammo.
Right now I am shooting IMI M193 and have my go bag magazines stuffed with
Hornady TAP 75gr BTHP .223
and
Black Hills 77gr BTHP .223
Both loads function perfectly and appeared acceptable on Doc's list.
As time goes by I may try other loads but I feel pretty confident in what I have in my current inventory.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.